The Constitutional Court found No 114 / 2022 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 22 March 2022 sp. zn.
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
10.05.2022
Zobrazeno prvních 200 z celkem 364 ustanovení tohoto předpisu.
Zobrazit celý předpis →
Pro stažení celého znění použijte tlačítko Stáhnout výše.
114
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
On 22 March 2022, the Constitutional Court decided, under point Pl. ÚS 39 / 18, on 22 March 2022 in plenary, composed of the Vice-President of the Court of Milady Tomková and the Judges Louis David, Josef Fiale, Jan Filip (Judge Rapporteur), Jaromír Jirsy, Tomáš Líčník, Vladimir Sládeček, Radovana Suchanek, Pavel Šámal, Vojtětěho Šimíček, David Uhír and Jiří Zemánek, on the proposal of a group of Senators, for whom Senator Jitka Seitlová Seitlová, legally represented by Dr. PhDr Stanislav Balík, Ph.D., a lawyer, seat of Kolínská 1686 / 13, Prague 3 - Vinohrady, on the abolition of the provisions of § 1 (1, paragraph 1) of the Rules of the Parliament of the Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Court of the Court of the Court of the Court of the Court of the Court of
as follows:
Motion denied.
Reasons
Subject matter
1. By a proposal pursuant to Article 64 (1) (b) of the Act No 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, a group of 18 Senators and Senators (hereinafter referred to as "the draftsman") requested that the Constitutional Court, in proceedings under Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"), annulled the proposed provisions of Act No 416 / 2009 Coll., on speeding up the construction of transport, water and energy infrastructure and electronic communications (the Line Act), as amended, together with the Annex thereto, for their conflict with the constitutional order (hereinafter referred to as "the contested provisions" individually "the contested provisions" and "the contested Annex"); the newly introduced so-called "Liner Act '(see Article I (1) of Act No. 403 / 2020 Coll., amending Act No. 416 / 2009 Coll., on Acceleration of Construction of Transport, Water, Energy and Electronic Communications Infrastructure, as amended, and other related laws - hereinafter" Act No. 403 / 2020 Coll.') is also used by the legislator.
Arguments of the appellant
2. The appellant's application for annulment of the contested provisions justifies their alleged contradiction with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Charter ') and Article 36 of the Charter, whereby, according to the appellant," the institutions for the protection of the integrity of dwellings referred to in Article 12 of the Charter and the protection of business referred to in Article 26 (1) of the Charter are to "be considered'. The appellant also refers in the proposal to the principles of the protection of acquired rights and legitimate expectations, as well as to the prohibition of retroactivity and the prohibition of declarations of public interest by law. In its application, the appellant recalls from its point of view the relevant case law of the Constitutional Court, from which it considers the findings of the Constitutional Court of 28.6.2005 sp. zn. In view of the broader context, the proposal then recalls the finding of 19 July 2016 sp. zn. All decisions of the Constitutional Court are available at http: / / nalus.ujud.cz.
3. The appellant contends that the contested provisions of the Line Law (without distinguishing them further) are contrary to Article 11 of the Charter. They declare the public interest in certain buildings by a similar procedure to that found by the Constitutional Court in the sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 24 / 04 ("Jezy na Labi"), which repealed § 3a of Act No. 114 / 1995 Coll., on Inland Navigation, as amended, and in the sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 24 / 08 ("take-off and landing routes of Prague Ruzyně Airport"), which repealed Act No. 544 / 2005 Coll., on the construction of the take-off and landing routes of 06R - 24L Prague Ruzyně airport. Following the statement of public interest by law, the appellant points out that, in the present case, it is not possible in particular to exclude from the contested annex in which certain buildings subject to the contested § 4a of the liner law are to be mentioned in such a way that the nature of the contested provisions is emptied as a normative act, which is combined with the significant elements of an individual administrative act. The contested provisions, including the contested annex, therefore lack a general feature. The appellant considers that, in fact, the cases dealt with by the two findings of the Constitutional Court (sp. zn.
4. The appellant then refers, in its proposal to the alleged contradiction of the contested provisions with the principles of the protection of acquired rights, legitimate expectations and anti-constitutional retroactivity, to the arguments set out in paragraphs 147 to 149 of the Constitutional Court's finding of 19 April 2011 in the preamble to ÚS 53 / 10, which it finds to be fully applicable to the case under consideration.
5. The appellant also seeks to carry out the so-called proportionality test of the contested provisions, in which it is alleged that the intensity of the public interest on the one hand and the protection of property rights on the other hand must be assessed, taking into account that the public interest in the procedure foreseen by the contested provisions is not equally intense in all the cases set out in the Annex to the Line Law. As regards the proportionality test, the appellant underlines the inappropriateness of the flat-rate adjustment by means of the "erroneous apriority 'on which the contested provisions are based, according to the appellant, since they assume that all owners of the land concerned will, without distinction, have disproportionate financial requirements excluding settlement by agreement and will" cause difficulties'. The appellant points out in this regard that expropriation or forced restriction of property rights is also the most important means (ultima ratio) from the point of view of the public interest, and is preparing for the use of more procedural means to achieve the stated objectives, which will not show signs of pressure on expropriated by the unconstitutional shortening of the expropriation procedure. According to the appellant, the determination of the amount of the compensation for expropriation must be fair and should not be made under the pressure of the said reduction in expropriation proceedings. The appellant further points out the fact that the owners of real estate from the effectiveness of the contested provisions are subject to a different, less favourable legal regime for them, which bursts their ownership with a "defect ', which they were not aware of when they acquired the property and could not expect to see in the future.
6. The appellant points out the effectiveness of the legislative process leading to the adoption of the contested provisions, which, in addition to the newly adopted provisions, was incorporated into the Line Act by Act No. 169 / 2018 Coll., amending Act No. 416 / 2009 Coll., on Acceleration of Construction of Transport, Water, Energy and Electronic Communications Infrastructure, as amended, and other related laws (hereinafter referred to as the "Amendment to the Line Act '). According to the appellant, the standard procedures in force for discussing government bills were to be circumvented, as the parliamentary legislative initiative is an institution intended for opposition Members, not an instrument of the ministerial and coalition Members who, with its help, say the appellant," will simplify legislative procedures. "Although the circumstances of the submission of a proposal for amendment to the Liner Act do not in itself create the unconstitutional nature of the contested provisions, it considers that the effectiveness of the" assertion of public interest' should be underlined in order to facilitate the executive process of preparing and implementing the selected buildings to the detriment of the protection of the property owners concerned.
7. The contested unconstitutionality of the various contested provisions is justified by the appellant in the following sequence (not according to the system of the liner law).
Objection of unconstitutionality of the annex to the Line Law
8. In the contested annex to the Liner Act, the appellant opposed the list (sc. selection) of transport infrastructure structures, which was not justified in the explanatory memorandum and was to be carried out without any objective criteria including time and without taking into account the degree of expansion of the selected construction. There is also a lack of distinction between whether the buildings in the annex to which the procedural institute of interim decisions may apply are regarded as being only the so-called new buildings of the buildings in question, or also those represented by modifications, repairs or maintenance of the buildings already completed. If the procedural institute in question should only target so-called new buildings, the appellant considers this to be a confirmation of the theory that it is not a regulatory act, but an individual act (for single use, the difference in construction or maintenance, etc.). If, on the contrary, the procedural institute of the interim decision should also have an impact on the modifications or repairs of those buildings, then the criteria governing the applicability of the institution of the interim decision, according to the appellant, are missing, for example, the expression of a minimum financial limit on investment costs, which could have been exceeded by a special scheme within the meaning of Article 4a of the Liner Act. The applicant, on the example of the regional railway line Otrokovice - Vizovice, which is included in the Annex as the only regional railway line, whereas a comparable line of the type Český Těšín - Frýdek-Místek or Lužná u Rakovnik - Chomutov is missing in the contested annex by concluding that the selection of the buildings listed therein can be considered as entirely random.
Inconstitutional objection § 4a of the Liner Act
9. For the reasons set out below, the appellant considers the provision of § 4a of the Liner Law to be unconstitutional and further underlines its ambiguity, unfamiliarity, impartiality and kusness, which cannot be bridged by a constitutionally consistent interpretation.
10. According to the appellant, in the defined expropriation procedures, the principle of double-party administrative proceedings was abandoned to the burden of the expropriated. The concept of an interim decision is contrary to the requirements of Article 11 (4) of the Charter, among which the appellant sets out the inadmissibility of the phasing-out of the expropriation process to the part relating to the expropriation itself (i.e. the withdrawal or restriction of title) and the part relating to the determination of the amount of compensation for expropriation. The decision on the amount of compensation is to be made in a timely manner as the law does not in any way limit the length of the period between the withdrawal of the right of ownership and the decision on the amount of compensation. It also infringes the principle of division of powers on the ground that, although courts are not to have established sufficient material and personnel conditions in order to be able to effectively rule on possible administrative actions or appeals against interim decisions within a legally limited period of 60 days, they are "effectively transferred by the Administrative Procedure Agenda 'as a result of the withdrawal of the review instance.
11. In addition, the appellant objects to the Institute of Interim Decisions in such a way as to "in fact be a final decision on the substance of the case ', where a decision on the basis of the case would rightly be merely a decision on whether the statutory conditions for expropriation or whether the expropriator's application is justified in its entirety. Only the legal power of such a (truly interim) decision on the basis of the case should be followed by a decision on the remainder of the case, which would consist of a statement of withdrawal of the right of ownership and a statement of the amount of compensation for expropriation. The appellant then expresses doubts as to whether, in determining the amount of the compensation for expropriation, Act No. 184 / 2006 Coll., on the withdrawal or limitation of the property right to land or construction (Expropriation Act), as amended, (the Expropriation Act) and whether Article 4a (5) of the Line Law is mandatory or not. According to the appellant, the alleged interim decision would be final even in relation to the amount of the expropriation compensation, where the expropriated would be obliged to accept the conclusions of the expert opinion.
Objection of unconstitutional § 2f liner law
12. On the basis of Article 2f of the Liner Act, the appellant argues that it is based on the presumption of the implementation of the targeted construction, i.e. the idea that where it will be measured once or for all, the survey will be carried out in the future. However, if the construction had not been carried out on such land on which the measures or exploratory work had been carried out, the owner would have been "severely limited" on the basis of "very preliminary consideration of future construction." This provision is so easily misused by the investor being entitled to carry out measurements and surveys on several routes, knowing that the construction will no longer be carried out on one or more of them. In the absence of a procedure whereby the construction is placed or authorised and therefore, according to the appellant, "a specific object of public interest is not yet clearly defined ', the intensity of the protection of property rights exceeds that of the alleged public interest. In addition, the proportionality test does not support the possibility of" exploratory work', as its intensity is significantly higher than that of measurements, and in consequence, the appellant considers that it can lead to a permanent depreciation of the land (e.g. discharging the set for compensation, but without the possibility of a full renewal at the time of the owner's life).
13. The contested provision as a whole does not make any distinction between land and its components and is therefore intended to allow measurements and exploratory work to be carried out in the housing and business premises. In this regard, the appellant finds the contested Article 2f of the Line Act as contradictory to Article 12 of the Charter or Article 26 of the Charter. According to the appellant, the alleged deficit of the regulation contained in the contested § 2f liner law should be the absence of a requirement for the presence of the owner or tenant of the real estate in carrying out measurements or exploratory work and a lack of a special regime for the implementation of such interventions, which would emphasise the element of the exceptional nature of such acts (for comparison, the appellant refers to the "inspection of the law firm in the context of an urgent act or criminal procedure in which the obligation of the representative of the Czech Bar Chamber is laid down). The contested provision does not contain any restrictions in the form of a time limit for measurements and exploratory work or laying down the conditions for their" effectiveness and rationality, "resulting in insufficient protection of owners from their misuse or exploitation.
Variants of the constitutionally consistent solution to the contested legislation
14. Although the appellant is aware, in her own words, that the Constitutional Court is merely a so-called negative legislator and is not entitled to intervene in any way in the contested provision, it offers a "certain analogy 'in the regulation of urgent criminal proceedings at the very end of the proposal. As a possible variant of a constitutional conformist solution (i.e. instead of the adoption of the contested § 4a Line Act referring to a specific list of buildings in the contested annex), it offers a model in which, on the basis of the predefined criteria in the Act, the possibility of substituting a specific construction under a special regime would be established by an individual administrative act.
Active procedural legitimacy and management conditions
15. Under Paragraph 64 (1) (b) of the Constitutional Court Act, a group of at least 17 senators is entitled to file an application for annulment of the law or its individual provisions. The motion under examination was submitted by a group of 18 Senators, as can be seen from the signature document annexed to the application, to which each of the Senators individually confirmed that it was attached (Section 64 (5) of the Constitutional Court Act, as amended by Act No. 320 / 2002 Coll.). The applicant therefore fulfils the condition of active legitimacy.
16. The proposal at the time of the submission contained all the legal requirements required and was admissible under Section 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll. At the same time, there is no reason to terminate the procedure under Section 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll.
17. For subsequent amendments to the contested legislation, see Subs V and VI in detail below. For the possibility of simultaneous and separate assault of the provisions of the Annex to the Line Law, see Section IX.
Observations of the parties and interveners on the content of the application
18. The Constitutional Court, acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended, invited the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate (as parties) and the Government, together with the Ombudsman (as potential interveners), to decide whether to intervene and, where appropriate, to comment on the content of the application.
19. The Ombudsman announced to the Constitutional Court by a letter received on 12 April 2019 that she would not enter the application procedure within the meaning of Article 69 (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended.
Observations of the Chamber of Deputies
20. The observations of the Chamber of Deputies of 23 April 2019 relate only to the formal aspects of the legislative process which led to the adoption of the contested provisions. In its observations, the Chamber of Deputies stated that a group of Members in the Chamber of Deputies submitted the draft amendment to the Line Law which introduced the contested provisions to the Rules of Procedure on 31 January 2018, which was discussed under the number of the House of Deputies 76 / 0. At the first reading of the draft law held on 2 and 6 March 2018, the proposal was commanded to discuss the Economic Committee and the Constitutional Law Committee. The Economic Committee discussed the draft law and on 4 May 2018 issued a resolution to Members as House Press 76 / 6. The Constitutional Legal Committee discussed the draft law and on 15 May 2018 issued a resolution to Members as House Press 76 / 7. The second reading of the draft law took place on 30 May 2018 at the 13th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies, a summary of the amendments tabled was prepared as a House Press 76 / 8 and sent to Members on 1 June 2018. At the third reading, the bill was debated on 29 June 2018 at the 16th session of the Chamber of Deputies, where it was approved in vote No 70 (Resolution No 297), of which 160 Members were voting in favour of the bill 156 Members and against none. Subsequently, on 2 July 2018, the bill was referred by the Chamber of Deputies to the Senate, which discussed and approved it on 18 July 2018 (Resolution 443). In order to sign the President of the Republic, the law was delivered on 20 July 2018 and signed on 1 August 2018. The law was published in the Collection of Laws in the amount of 86 under No. 169 / 2018 Coll. According to the Chamber of Deputies, the amendment to the Line Act was duly approved, signed by the President of the Republic and published. In the Chamber of Deputies' view, there is no other way to conclude that the legislature has acted in the belief that the contested provisions "are compatible with the Constitution and our rule of law ', but that the assessment of the constitutionality of the law is up to the Constitutional Court to decide on this issue.
Statement by the Senate
21. The Senate shall, at the beginning of its observations of 24 April 2019, give a detailed review of the content of the appellant's proposal (point I of the observations). Point II of the Senate's observations contains a citation of the text of the contested provisions. Point III of the statement summarises the course of discussion and approval of the amendment to the Line Law in the Senate. The proposal was delivered to the Senate on 2 July 2018 and was ordered by the Organising Committee to the Committee on Economic, Agriculture and Transport as a guarantee committee. It discussed it at its 27th meeting (Resolution 218) on 11 July 2018 and recommended it to the Senate for approval as referred to by the Chamber of Deputies. The other Senate Committee, to which the proposal was ordered, was the Constitutional Legal Committee, which also recommended it on 11 July 2018 by Resolution 126 for approval as referred to by the Chamber of Deputies. The last committee to which the proposal was ordered was the Committee on Territorial Development, Public Administration and the Environment, which also recommended the approval of the proposal as referred to by the Chamber of Deputies at its 19th meeting of 17 July 2018 by Resolution No 119. The Senate classified the press at its 16th meeting and discussed it on 18 July 2018, with a broad debate on the bill. Among the most discussed points were also the contested provisions defined by the appellant in the proposal. The Senate also quotes the speeches of some senators and their arguments for and against the adoption of the amendment to the Liner Act. Following the conclusion of the general debate, the Senate approved the draft law, as referred to by the Chamber of Deputies on 18 July 2018 in vote 16, when 50 of the 69 senators present opposed it and 2 opposed it. In conclusion, the Senate expressed its belief that, when discussing the amendment to the Liner Act, it acted within the limits of the constitutional competence conferred on it and in accordance with the constitutional procedure, leaving the Constitutional Court itself to assess the constitutionality of the contested provisions.
Government observations
22. On 29 April 2019, the Government adopted Resolution 282 approving its entry into the application procedure, proposing its rejection and authorising the Minister of Justice, in cooperation with the Minister for Transport, to draw up and send the Government's observations on the appellant's proposal.
23. In that statement, the Government makes a summary of the view that the contested provisions are in line with the constitutional order, which is the most appropriate means of achieving a legitimate objective, i.e. to make the land rights or buildings necessary to realise the construction of transport infrastructure necessary to develop the country's economic well-being substantially more efficient. The Government then, by means of selected data concerning the duration of preparatory or authorisation processes in the construction of certain sections of motorways in the Czech Republic, points out the social and economic nature of the issue of expropriation procedures, since their inadequate length remains a fundamental obstacle to the implementation of public utility structures, and even the special provisions contained in § 3a to 3c of the Liner Act incorporated into this law by previous amendments did not contribute to unblocking the state of play. As two specific cases of delayed implementation, the government reports the construction of motorway sections D1 Přerov - Rikovice and motorway D11 Hradec Králové - Smiřice. According to the Government, ownership is not an absolute right, but it also performs other functions; In this context, the Government refers in its observations to the finding of the Constitutional Court of 22.3.2005 sp. zn.
24. The issue of the process of adopting the amendment to the Liner Act (see Sub 6) is rejected by the Government, referring to Article 41 of the Constitution, which was used by a group of Members representing all political parties then represented in the Chamber of Deputies. However, pursuant to Article 44 (1) of the Constitution, the Government also discussed and agreed to the amendment to the Line Law. In view of this, the amendment to the Line Act was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution, both in a constitutional manner.
25. On the statement of public interest by the law and the appellant contesting the contested provisions with Article 11 of the Charter, the Government states that the argument referring to the precaselaw of the Constitutional Court, represented by the findings of 28.6.2005 sp. zn. Contrary to the cases dealt with by these findings, the amendment of the Line Law does not declare the existence of public interest in any construction, even indirectly, by the contested provisions (and by any other provisions). On the contrary, the Government stresses that even in the expropriation procedures under the liner law, the public interest in expropriation must be demonstrated in any case individually (Section 4 (2) of the Expropriation Act).
26. The contested breach of the principle of the protection of acquired rights, legitimate expectations and the prohibition of retroactivity is, according to the Government, not further developed and it is not clear from the proposal what the inadmissible retroactivity of the contested provisions should consist of. Unlike the appellant, the Government considers that "no indication of undue retroactive action can be found in the contested provisions' and that the position of addressees is affected by the contested provisions in a reasonable manner, which is justified and necessary.
27. The possibility of using an interim decision pursuant to § 4a of the Line Law is defended by the Government by the fact that its issue in the expropriation procedure is conditional upon (a) the conclusion of the Expropriation Office that the expropriation conditions (§ 3 to 5 of the Expropriation Act) are met, with the exception of the determination of the amount of compensation for expropriation, (b) the need for the construction of the transport infrastructure within the meaning of § 1 (2) of the Line Act, (c) the definition of the construction in the principle of territorial development and (d) its inclusion in the contested annex. In the view of the Government, these four conditions "effectively result in minimising the number of potential real estate owners'.
28. The Government refutes the lack of universality in relation to the nominal calculation of the construction of transport infrastructure contained in the contested Annex, claiming that "all provisions of the Line Law (including its Annex) are formulated in general and affect a specifically undefined range of cases and addressees', whereas the Annex to the Line Act does not specify the specific land and buildings which may be subject to expropriation proceedings in which an interim decision may be taken under the contested § 4a Line Law. Thus, there is no confusion between a standard administrative act and an individual administrative act. On the contrary, the taxing list of transport infrastructure structures in the annex, in the view of the Government, will" contribute to the preventive exclusion of potential, arbitrary 'executive power, which, for example, would consist in a far-reaching determination of the number of transport structures on which Section 4a of the Liner Act can be applied by law'. The contested annex should also determine, in the words of the Government, "the spatial scope of the law by establishing a closed list of transport infrastructure structures generally defined in the Annex to the Act ', or the spatial scope of a" special procedure for a specific type of construction'. In this context, the Government points out that the determination of the spatial scope of the Act by means of a verbal definition and indicative graphic representation of the boundaries contained in the Annex to the Act is to be common and the Constitutional Court and the pending practice - to this conclusion the Government refers to the finding of the Constitutional Court of 25 September 2018 sp. zn. As regards the selection of the buildings in the contested Annex itself, the Government states that "primarily" the routes of motorways, first class roads and tracks (locally defined by them at the beginning and end of the works) listed in the Czech Republic's Transport and Territorial Development Strategy Papers, as well as those which are "in most cases" included in the trans-European transport network [within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 1315 / 2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on Union guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network and repealing Decision No 661 / 2010 / EU and Regulation (EC) No 67 / 2010]. The Government also cites in its observations the speech of Mr Ing. Martin Kolovratnik, who was a representative of the translators of the bill in the general debate, during which he explained how the list of buildings in the contested annex formed in consultation with individual investors and how complex the parliamentary consensus was about its final version.
29. The Government states that there appears to be some misunderstanding on the part of the appellant against the concept of an interim decision itself and therefore explains in detail the contested legal institute. According to the Government, in order to accelerate the construction of transport infrastructure, the intention of the legislators (using the standard institute of interim decisions under § 148 of the Administrative Regulation) was to create a procedural space for the issuing of two meritative decisions, which can be examined separately and between which there may be a more significant time gap. It is intended to follow up on a situation in which, even in the expropriation procedure under the general expropriation law, two separate parts of the statement are included in the decision on the substance of the case, i.e. the expropriation and the expropriation compensation, which can nevertheless only be issued together and only at the time of the termination of the proof of the amount of the expropriation compensation (which, according to the Government, is usually the most contentious and demanding stage of most expropriation proceedings). The Institute of Intermediary Decisions is thus intended to allow for a final and separate decision to be taken on the expropriation of an interim decision earlier, which will result in a significant acceleration in the process of obtaining legal certainty regarding the ownership of the property needed for the implementation of the construction. In this context, the Government recalled that the amendment to the Line Act eventually diverted from the originally proposed member of the "preliminary holding" institute, which, according to the Government, was indeed a complicated solution in its implications and a non-systematic solution compared to the Institute of Interim Decision.
30. The appellant contesting the introduction of an interim decision with Article 11 (4) The Charter, because of the phasing out of the expropriation of the earlier expropriation decision and the later decision on the amount of the compensation, the Government argues, firstly, that even the general expropriation law allows a time lag between the legal effects of the expropriation decision and the decision on the amount of compensation (cf. § 25 (2) of the Expropriation Act) and, secondly, that, if a new obligation on the expropriator to pay the compensation is included in the liner law at the same time (cf.
31. To the appellant's opposition to the exclusion of an appeal against an interim decision, the Government states that the two-way nature of the administrative procedure is not a constitutional requirement, and the solution chosen is therefore without further prejudice (the possibility of judicial review of the interim decision remains unaffected). This view is also held in the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court, from whose judgments the Government refers to judgments of 25.10.2005 sp. zn. 2 As 47 / 2004 and of 25.5.2011 sp. zn. 2 As 37 / 2011. In this respect, the Government also refers to the case-law of the Constitutional Court, namely the findings of 19.10.2004 sp. zn. II. ÚS 623 / 02 (N 149 / 35 SbNU 83) and of 26.4.2005 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 21 / 04 (N 90 / 37 SbNU 241; 240 / 2005 Sb.), which is intended to imply that even the Constitutional Court does not consider the bilingarity of administrative proceedings to be a principle guaranteed by the Charter or the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention ').
32. The Government draws attention to the fact that the rule of law already contains a number of comparable provisions, which are applied in practice without difficulty, when settling the objections raised by the appellant to the § 2f Line Act (sub 12 and 13). For example, the Government refers to Section 7 of Act No. 274 / 2001 Coll., on Water and Sewerage for Public Use and on the amendment of certain laws (Water and Sewerage Act), as amended, Section 9 of Act No. 167 / 2008 Coll., on the Prevention of Environmental Damage and its rectification and on the amendment of certain laws, Sections 24, 25, 57, 58, 60 and 76 of Act No. 458 / 2000 Coll., on the Conditions of Business and the Enforcement of State Administration in the Energy Sector and on the Amendment of Certain Laws (Energy Act), as amended by Act No. 150 / 1997 Coll., on Land Communications, as amended, and Section 60 of Act No. 254 / 2001 Coll. The Government also refers to Section 104 (6) of Act No. 127 / 2005 Coll., on Electronic Communications and on the amendment of certain related laws (the Act on Electronic Communications), from which it also quotes. The Government's observations at that point refer to the Constitutional Court's finding of 18.7.2017 sp. zn.
33. The Government underlines that the text of the contested § 2f Line Act is formulated appropriately and that it minimises interference in property ownership law. The implementation of exploratory work and measurement is an essential condition not only for the quality of preparation of the necessary documentation, but also, for example, for assessing whether there is a suitable basis for future safety of construction of transport infrastructure, protection of groundwater or protected animals. The nature of the matter will mainly be a field survey, and it cannot therefore be shared with the author's concern that it will be entrances to apartments or premises for business (although this option cannot be completely excluded for example for tunnel buildings under buildings built in the territory). Paragraph 2f of the Liner Act, according to the Government, contains sufficient safeguards against its misuse by authorised investors or authorised persons (i.e. prior written notice to the owner of the measurement or survey, the obligation to save as much as possible the rights of property owners in carrying out measurements or surveys, the obligation to place the land in its original state after the completion of the measurement or survey, the obligation to compensate for damage to the property to the owner or user at twice the amount determined under the Property Measurement Act). The Government subsequently, by reference to the finding of the Constitutional Court of 12.10.1994 sp. zn. Similarly, according to the Government, the contested Section 2f of the Line Law will stand up to the so-called quality test of the law within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention used by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
34. The Government therefore proposed to reject the application in the light of the abovementioned Constitutional Court.
35. The Government also deals with the contradictions made by the appellant in the preamble to the model situation, which, as a result of the alleged loopholes and contradictions in the regulation introduced by the amendment of the Line Act, could be implemented in practice, but it does not consider it necessary for the Constitutional Court to recap the interpretation of these points.
Replication of the appellant
36. The Constitutional Court has sent all the above observations to the appellant's representatives on the note and any reply.
37. The author stated in a reply that she had no objection to the observations of the Chamber of Deputies.
38. In addition to the Senate's observations, the draftsman added a partial citation of the speeches made by the former Senator JUDr. Eliška Wagner, Ph.D., and Senator RNDr. Miloš, to the draft amendment of the Liner Act at the Senate meeting held on 18.7.2018, in which they criticised certain issues (general consensus, specificities of the interim decision, universality of the Law according to legal theory, procedure of the Ministry of Transport and the Minister of Transport) related to the draft Act (with reference to the stenographer of the Senate meeting of the 11th term of office held on 18.7.2018, available at https: / www.senat.cz / xqw / xervlet / pssenat / pssenat? action = steno & O = 11 & IS = 6073 & D = 18.07.2018).
39. In the Government's observations, the appellant first of all disputes the argument that the contested provisions are to be the most appropriate means of achieving the legitimate objective of making the land rights or buildings necessary for the construction of transport infrastructure necessary to develop the country's economic well-being more effective. The appeal of the Government to the Constitutional Court to also take into account this "material aspect of the issue 'when reviewing the contested provisions is not justified, according to the appellant.
40. It can be concluded from the content of the reply that the appellant does not agree that (the only) reason, for example, for slow construction of motorways would be imperfect legislation governing the expropriation process, but should also be shortcomings in the activity of the Road and Motorway Directorate of the Czech Republic, which is in the position of a legitimate investor in this area. As examples of motorways in which there is a delay in implementation for a number of reasons different from those of origin in expropriation procedures, the applicant details the time data with milestones of preparatory work on the sections of the motorway D1 0136 Přerov - Říkovice and D11 1106 Hradec Králové - Smiřice, where the preparatory work (including the necessary authorisation processes) takes more than 20 years.
41. The appellant further defines against the Government's controversy with the applicability of the conclusions contained in the findings of the Constitutional Court's findings of 28.6.2005 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 24 / 04 (N 130 / 37 CollNU 641; 327 / 2005 Coll.) and of 17.3.2009 sp. zl. ÚS 24 / 08 (N 56 / 52 SbNU 555; 124 / 2009 Coll.), and insists that the contested provisions lack the general character that even the Government, in its observations, admits that the selection of buildings in the Annex was the subject of political negotiation. Nor does the explanatory report on the draft amendment to the Liner Act offer answers to questions relating to the selection of buildings in the annex, as it merely notes that "an annex containing a list of selected transport infrastructure structures to which certain of the abovementioned special institutes apply is added to the Act itself." The conclusions of the Constitutional Court set out in the finding of 17 July 2019 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 44 / 18 (N 134 / 95 CollU 124; 225 / 2019 Coll.) are not to apply to the case, since this finding and the contested legislation [§ 23a of Act No. 100 / 2001 Coll., on the Environmental Impact Assessment and the amendment of certain related laws (Act on Environmental Impact Assessment), as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the EIA Act ')], which, for the purpose of classifying a particular transport project as a" priority', sets out four cumulative conditions (cf. paragraph 33 of the above) in this concept significantly different from the contested act and the annexes, which merely contains a nominal statement of the selected buildings of transport infrastructure.
42. The appellant also contends that the government-mentioned finding sp. zn. Also, as regards other government-mentioned permissions for admission to foreign property, which establish special laws (see paragraph 32 above), the appellant argues that there are different purposes for such adjustments - i.e. the need to allow inputs to foreign land mainly for the purpose of controlling or maintaining existing buildings or installations.
Amendments to the contested provisions in the course of the application procedure
43. In the course of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, further amendments were made to the contested provisions, which had to be addressed in the preparation of the decision.
Amendment to the contested provisions by Act No. 403 / 2020 Coll.
44. The first amendment of some of the contested provisions of the liner law was implemented by Act No. 403 / 2020 Coll. In particular, paragraph 21 of the first amendment to Act No 403 / 2020 Coll., in the first sentence of the contested § 2f Line Act, the words "water or energy 'were inserted after the word" water or energy' and the words "an eligible investor 'were replaced by the words" the owner, administrator or operator of the public transport or public technical infrastructure (hereinafter referred to as the authorised investor') '.
45. Furthermore, in Article I (36) of Amendment No 403 / 2020 Coll. in the contested § 4a (1) of the Line Act, the words "water or energy" were inserted after the word "defined" and the words "in the territorial development plan" were inserted after the word "defined."
46. Finally, in Article I (41) of Amendment No 403 / 2020 Coll. the contested Annex to the Line Act was amended by replacing "I / 12" with "I / 9, I / 12, I / 13, I / 23" and "I / 49," with "I / 50, I / 57". In addition, new points 5 to 8 have been added to the contested annex, including energy or water structures (see closer to sub 61).
47. The Constitutional Court asked the appellant whether, after the adoption of Amendment No 403 / 2020 Coll. persists on the proposal in its original scope and wording. By letter dated 12.3.2021, the appellant supplemented the proposal and proposed in its petition the annulment of the contested provisions as amended by the amending Act No. 403 / 2020 Coll., which was justified by the amendment Act No. 403 / 2020 Coll. It has extended even further the range of persons whose constitutional rights are affected. On the one hand, the contested § 4a of the Liner Law governing the Institute of Interim Decisions added other categories of construction (i.e. the construction of water and energy infrastructure and the construction of buildings defined in addition to the principles of territorial development also in the Territorial Development Plan) and, on the other hand, the list of buildings in the annex to the Act in respect of which the Institute of Interim Decision can be used. In the remainder, the appellant referred to the arguments contained in the submission of 18 October 2018 (original proposal). It has recently formulated a petition in which it has, however, merely specified the data on the contested liner law without extending the scope of the contested provisions. The proposal, which the Constitutional Court decides after the amendment of the proposal of 12 March 2021, reads as follows (Note: quoted including legislative-technical inaccuracies and obvious inconsistencies): "Part of the provision of Paragraph 1 (1) as amended, in the acquisition of the rights to land and buildings necessary for the implementation of the above-mentioned structures', in the Act No. 178 / 2014 Coll., and in the Act No. 416 / 2009 Coll. on the Acceleration of Construction of Transport, Water and Energy Infrastructure as amended by Act No. 209 / 2011 Coll., Act No. 169 / 2018 Coll., Act No. 237 / 2020 Coll., and Act No. 403 / 2021 Coll., Act No. 416 / 2009 Coll., Act No. 225 / 2017 Coll.
48. The Constitutional Court sent a reply to the appellant's submission and to the other parties and interveners.
49. The Chamber of Deputies, in its observations of 7. 4. 2021, described the progress of the legislative process of amending Act No. 403 / 2020 Coll. The proposal was discussed under House Press number 673 / 0. At the first reading on 29 January 2020, the proposal was ordered to the Economic Committee. On 19 May 2020, the Economic Committee discussed the bill and issued a resolution to Members as House Press 673 / 2. The second reading of the bill took place on 2 June 2020 at the 49th session of the Chamber of Deputies and the summary of the amendments tabled was processed as House Press 673 / 3, which was distributed to Members on 3 June 2020. The Committee on Economic Affairs of the Chamber of Deputies discussed this proposal and issued a resolution which was delivered on 12 June 2020 to Members as House Press 673 / 4. At the third reading, the bill was debated on 19 June 2020 at the 49th session of the Chamber of Deputies, where it was approved in vote No 285 (Resolution No 1189), when of the 157 Members present, 129 and 16 Members voted in favour of the bill. On 29 June 2020, the Senate Chamber of Deputies passed the bill, which was discussed and returned to the Chamber of Deputies on 23 July 2020 with amendments (Resolution 465). On 29 September 2020, the Chamber of Deputies voted on the bill returned by the Senate at the 58th meeting, remaining on the original bill in vote 246 (resolution 1246; of the 174 Members present, 155 voted in favour of the bill and 5 voted against). The law was delivered to the President of the Republic for signature on 30 September 2020. The President of the Republic was signed on 1 October 2020 and published in the Collection of Laws in the amount of 163 under the number 403 / 2020 Coll. In view of the above, my view is that Amendment No 403 / 2020 Coll. has been approved by the necessary majority of Members of the Chamber of Deputies, signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and duly declared. The legislature acted in the conviction of compliance with the amending Act No. 403 / 2020 Coll. "with the Constitution and our rule of law" means that the assessment of the constitutionality of the law is up to the Constitutional Court to decide on this issue. The Chamber of Deputies did not express or make any procedural proposal in addition to the author's submission of 12.3.2021.
50. The Senate in its observations of 8.4.2021 at the point It also summarises the changes resulting from Amendment Act No. 403 / 2020 Coll. as described in paragraphs 43 to 46 above. In point II of the statement, the discussion and approval of amending Act No. 403 / 2020 Coll. on the Senate is summarised. The proposal was delivered to the Senate on 29 June 2020 and was ordered by the Organising Committee to discuss it by the Committee on Economy, Agriculture and Transport as a guarantee committee. It discussed it at its 30th meeting (resolution 197) on 15 July 2020 and recommended that the Senate return the bill to the Senate with amendments. The next Senate Committee to which the proposal was ordered was the Committee on Territorial Development, Public Administration and the Environment, which also recommended it, at its 18th meeting in Resolution 96, to return it to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments (but which differed slightly from the amendments of the Committee on Economic, Agriculture and Transport in the scope of the launch of the water works Skalicka from the Annex to the Act). The Senate classified the press at its 25th session of the 12th term and discussed it on 23 July 2020. In its observations, the Senate cites the speeches of certain senators and their reservations concerning, in particular, the proposed amendments to the annex to the Act. After the debate, the Senate decided on 23 July 2020 in vote 47 by resolution 465 by returning the bill to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments. Of the 66 senators present, 57 of them were in favour of this proposal on May 34, and two were opposed. In conclusion, the Senate expressed the belief that, when discussing both the amendment of the Liner Act and the amending Act No. 403 / 2020 Coll., it acted within the limits of the "Constitution of the established competence and the constitutionally prescribed way, leaving the Constitutional Court itself to assess the constitutionality of the contested provisions." The Senate also did not express or make any procedural proposal to the appellant's submission of 12.3.2021.
51. The Government, represented by the Minister for Transport in the application procedure in accordance with point IV of the Government Resolution of 29 April 2019 No 282, in its observations of 14 April 2021, briefly referred to "its original observations and does not extend them in any way," as this can also be linked to the "added form" of the appellant's proposal. The Government did not comment or make any procedural proposal to the appellant's submission of 12.3.2021.
52. In view of the fact that the Chamber of Deputies, the Senate and the Government did not specifically respond to the appellant's submissions of 12.3.2021 or put forward any procedural proposals in the case, the Constitutional Court has no longer sent these observations on the appellant's possible further observations, as such a procedure would be manifestly unnecessary.
53. After assessing the extent and nature of the changes to the contested provisions implemented by amending Act No. 403 / 2020 Coll. The Constitutional Court finds that the contested provisions have not been amended by Amendment No 403 / 2020 Coll. to the extent that the appellant's arguments contained in the original proposal have no further meaning. Indeed, the amending Act complements in part the contested § 2f and 4a of the Line Act, and in the contested annex it specifically extends the list of infrastructure constructions in respect of which the Institute of Intermediate Decision under the contested § 4a of the Line Act can be used. These partial amendments to the contested provisions are not essential enough, taking into account the appellant of the alleged non-constitutionality of the entire contested provisions, for the Constitutional Court to proceed to a partial termination of proceedings under Paragraph 67 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court and not to give a substantive assessment of the case to that extent (e.g. the finding of 31.10.2001 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 15 / 01 (N 164 / 24 SbNU 201; 424 / 2001 Coll.)).
54. By application of 12.3.2021, the appellant accordingly reflects the amendment of the contested provisions which took place during the proceedings before the Constitutional Court when it amended the petition for the original application (see sub 47). The parties and the interveners did not object to this change in the petition. For the sake of procedural economics, the Constitutional Court did not decide by a separate procedural resolution to allow a change of petit. Since the results of the present proceedings may also be the basis for the amended application procedure, the Constitutional Court continued after the appellant's submission of 12.3.2021 as in the application for annulment of Section 1 (1), as amended, "in obtaining the rights to the land and buildings necessary for the implementation of those structures', Sections 2f and 4a, including footnote 15 and the Annex to the Liner Act as amended by the amending Act No. 403 / 2020 Coll.
Amendment to the contested provisions by Act No 284 / 2021 Coll.
55. The same conclusions can be drawn on the subsequent amendment of the contested provisions indirectly in connection with the adoption of a new building law (Act No. 283 / 2021 Coll., Construction Act) and in part by Act No. 284 / 2021 Coll., amending certain laws in connection with the adoption of a building law. That later Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Amendment Act ') laid down in Article LXXVIII (1) that, in the first sentence of Article 1 (1), the word" placement' was deleted and the words "placing, authorising and authorising their use, as well as the issuing of conditional administrative decisions, and the acceleration of subsequent judicial review of all 'are replaced by the words" authorisation and subsequent judicial review'. The contested parts of Paragraph 1 (1) of the Line Law "did not thus directly affect the acquisition of the rights to the land and buildings needed for the implementation of the said buildings'.
56. In § 2f the amendment was made by point 16 of the above part of Act No 284 / 2021 Coll. by replacing the word "owner 'by the word" builder', the reference to footnote 14 is deleted and the words "placing or authorising or managing the construction and 'are deleted. This provision is therefore directly affected, but it is true for them, as stated above - the appellant's arguments and the counter-arguments of the intervener are therefore not affected and any decision on non-constitutionality could be made by the so-called intertemporal range statement. Therefore, the Constitutional Court could rely on the documents submitted so far. The Constitutional Court was also unable to overlook in this part of the amendments to some of the contested provisions that the amendment law in that section took effect, together with the majority of the provisions of the new building law, on 1 July 2023 (see Section 335 of the new building law), while the preparatory negotiations are currently being held on the implementation of further amendments to the new building law.
Text of the contested provisions
(in the time version of amending Acts No. 403 / 2020 Coll. and 284 / 2021 Coll.)
57. In Paragraph 1 (1) of the Line Law, the appellant proposed the abolition of part of the provision in question after the words "electronic communications" in words, in obtaining the rights to land and buildings necessary for the implementation of the said buildings. "
58. The contested § 2f of the Line Act (without any footnote) in the version is effective until 30 June 2023 as follows:
"Everyone shall be obliged to allow measurements and exploratory work to be carried out in preparation for the construction of transport, water or energy infrastructure by the owner, administrator or operator of the public transport or public technical infrastructure (hereinafter referred to as the authorised investor) 14, including before the start of the procedure for placing or authorising the construction, or the procedure for placing and authorising the construction. To that end, the authorised investor and the authorised persons shall have the right to enter and enter foreign immovable property. An authorised investor or persons authorised by him shall, as far as possible, examine the rights of the owners of the immovable property in question and, at least 14 days in advance, notify them in writing of the carrying out of measurements or exploratory work on their immovable property in accordance with Paragraph 3 (2). The notification referred to in the previous sentence shall state the reason for carrying out measurements or exploratory work on immovable property, the description of the activities to be carried out, the scope, manner, date and specification of the place of execution, the identification of the eligible investor, his contact details, the date of the notification and the name, surname, function and signature of the person authorised to represent the eligible investor. At the end of the work, the authorised investor or persons authorised by him shall be obliged to put the immovable property in its previous state and, if this is not possible in view of the nature of the work carried out, to the condition corresponding to the previous purpose or use of the immovable property in question and to immediately notify the owner of the immovable property in writing at the address referred to in § 3 (2). Where the owner or user of a immovable property has been limited to the normal use of the immovable property under this paragraph as a result of the exercise of the rights of the beneficiary investor or of the person empowered by him or her, or has suffered damage to the property, he shall be entitled to an appropriate one-off compensation equal to twice the amount determined under the law on the valuation of the property (10). '
59. In the time version effective from 1.7.2023, the contested provision shall be deleted after the first sentence of the word "owner 'is replaced by the word" builder', the reference to footnote 14 shall be deleted and the words "placing or authorising, or the procedure by which the construction is located and 'shall be deleted as follows:
Each person shall be obliged to allow measurements and exploratory work to be carried out in preparation for the construction of transport, water or energy infrastructure carried out by the builder, administrator or operator of the public transport or public technical infrastructure (hereinafter referred to as the authorised investor), even before the start of the procedure authorising the construction. To that end, the authorised investor and the authorised persons shall have the right to enter and enter foreign immovable property. An authorised investor or persons authorised by him shall, as far as possible, examine the rights of the owners of the immovable property in question and, at least 14 days in advance, notify them in writing of the carrying out of measurements or exploratory work on their immovable property in accordance with Paragraph 3 (2). The notification referred to in the previous sentence shall state the reason for carrying out measurements or exploratory work on immovable property, the description of the activities to be carried out, the scope, manner, date and specification of the place of execution, the identification of the eligible investor, his contact details, the date of the notification and the name, surname, function and signature of the person authorised to represent the eligible investor. At the end of the work, the authorised investor or persons authorised by him shall be obliged to put the immovable property in its previous state and, if this is not possible in view of the nature of the work carried out, to the condition corresponding to the previous purpose or use of the immovable property in question and to immediately notify the owner of the immovable property in writing at the address referred to in § 3 (2). Where the owner or user of a immovable property has been limited to the normal use of the immovable property under this paragraph as a result of the exercise of the rights of the beneficiary investor or of the person empowered by him or her, or has suffered damage to the property, he shall be entitled to an appropriate one-off compensation equal to twice the amount determined under the law on the valuation of the property (10). '
60. The contested § 4a (including footnote 15) of the Line Act reads:
(1) Where the expropriation authority has concluded in the expropriation procedure relating to the right to land or construction needed for the construction of the transport, water or energy infrastructure as defined in the territorial development plan or in the principles of territorial development and listed in the Annex to this Act, that the conditions for expropriation are fulfilled, with the exception of the determination of the amount of compensation for expropriation, it shall, at the request of the expropriator, issue an interim decision (15) containing statements pursuant to Article 24 (3) of the Expropriation Act (hereinafter, interim decision).
(2) An appeal against an interim decision is not admissible.
(3) An action against an interim decision shall be decided by the court within 60 days; This applies mutatis mutandis to appeals against the court's decision to bring an action.
(4) An application to grant the suspensive effect of an action against an interim decision may only be brought together with the action. An application for an appeal against a judgment of the Court of First Instance in accordance with the preceding sentence may be brought together with an appeal. The court shall not take account of the application submitted at a later date to grant suspensive effect.
(5) If the interim judgment has not been annulled by the court, the expropriator shall pay the expropriated advance on the compensation for expropriation at an amount set by the expert opinion which has attached to the draft contract for the acquisition of land or construction rights within 60 days of the legal authority
(a) interim decisions;
(b) the court's decision to bring an action against an interim decision, if any; or
(c) the judgment of the court of appeal against the decision of the court of appeal, if any.
(6) Where an action has been brought against an interim decision or an appeal has been brought against a judgment of the Court of First Instance on such an application, the expropriation office will not give a decision on the remainder of the case before the court's decision on the action or appeal has become final.
(7) If the refund for expropriation provided for in the decision on the remainder of the case is higher than the advance paid for exexpropriation, the expropriator shall settle the difference no later than 60 days from the legal authority of the decision on the remainder of the case. If the refund for expropriation provided for in the decision on the remainder of the case is lower than the advance paid for the exexpropriation, the expropriated shall return the difference no later than 60 days from the legal authority of the decision on the remainder of the case.
(8) If the expropriation of the material burden on the land or construction also causes the expropriation of the expropriation, paragraphs 5 and 7 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the person entitled to the expropriation whose rights cease to exist.
15) § 148 of Act No. 500 / 2004 Coll., Administrative Regulation, as amended. '
61. The Attachment to the Line Act referred to in § 4a reads:
"Annex
1. Freeways and roads
1.1 Freeways
D0 (Prague circuit), D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D10, D11, D35, D43, D48, D49, D52, D55,
1.2 First class roads
I / 9, I / 12, I / 13, I / 23, I / 33, I / 35, I / 42, I / 49, I / 50, I / 57,
2. Railways
railway line Prague - Plzeň - Domažlice - state border,
railway line Ústí nad Labem - Cheb,
railway line Plzeň - České Budějovice,
railway line Prague - České Budějovice - Horní Dvořiště - state border,
railway connection Prague - Kladno incl. connection of Václav Havel Airport Prague,
railway line Prague Vysočany - Lysá nad Labem,
railway line Hradec Králové - Pardubice - Chrudim,
railway line Prague - Česká Třebová - Brno,
railway line Great Osek - Hradec Kralove - Choceň,
the railway line Týništěch nad Orlicí - Častolovice - Solnice,
railway line Procentrní Žleb - Děčín - Mělík - Kolín - Havlíčkova Brod - Brno,
railway line Brno - Stop near Brno - Okržky,
RS 1 Praha - Brno - Přerov - Ostrava - border PL,
RS 2 Brno - Breclav - st. hr. SK / AT,
RS 4 Dresden - Ústí n. Labem - Praha incl. Kralupy (Nová Ves) - Louny - Most,
railway line Otrokovice - Vizovice,
railway line Hranice in Moravia - Upper Lidec,
buildings within the railway junction Prague (bounded by railway stations Prague-Ruzyně, Prague-Zlicín, Prague-Řeporyje, Prague-Radotín, Prague-Zadoslav, Prague-Uhraneves, Prague-Běchovice, Prague-Horní Počernice, Prague-Čakovice, Solutions near Prague), buildings within the railway junction Brno (enclosed by railway stations Brno-Malémetry, Old Liskovec, Modřice, Chrlice, Ponetovice),
construction within the railway junction Ostrava (bounded by the railway stations Polanka nad Odrou, Frýdek-Místek, Český Těšín, Petrovice u Karviné, border crossing Bohumín / Chalupki, Ostrava-Třebovice),
railway line Olomouc - Šumperk,
Special runways,
3. Infrastructure for Water Transport
gear Decin,
navigational degree
4. Infrastructure for air transport
parallel runway to take-off and landing of aircraft at Václav Havel Prague airport,
new fencing of Václav Havel Airport Prague.
5. Power lines
management 400 kV Vernéřov - Vítkov
management 400 kV Vítkov - Preštice
400 kV lead Preštice - Kocín
lead 400 kV Kocín - Peaceful
400 kV power line connecting 400 kV Řeporyje - Prosenice to the power station Mírovka
management 400 kV Vysov - Bohemia Middle - Prague North
management 400 kV Hradec - Education - Babylon - Nedědecín
management 400 kV Hradec - Temple - Preštice
management 400 kV Bohemia Center - Chodov
400 kV Nošovice - Prosenice - Otrokovice - Sokolnice - Slavetice - Zasný a Slavtice - Čebín
management 400 kV Otrokovice - state border with the Slovak Republic
400 kV Nošovice - Vratimov - Dětřerovice
110 kV lead Česká Lípa - Varnsdorf
6. Gas lines
VTL Gas pipeline DN 1000 Hardonica - Mezměrov
7. Electricity plants with a total installed electricity output of 100 MW or more
a new nuclear source in Temelín
a new nuclear source in Dukovany
8. Water infrastructure
New Herminov's water work
Water work Skalička
Water work Vlachovice
water work of Kryra
water work Senomata
the water work of Shanov. '
Proceedings and abandonment of oral proceedings
62. The Constitutional Court has concluded, pursuant to Article 44 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended, that there is no need for oral hearing in the present case, since it was not expected to clarify the case further, as it did not need to take evidence in the present case.
63. When voting on the proposal for a decision in the case under examination on 22.2.2022, the proposal submitted was not adopted. Pursuant to Article 55 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, in conjunction with Article 5 (10) of the schedule of proceedings of the Constitutional Court for the period from 1.1.2022 (full version of the schedule of proceedings No Org. 1 / 22 effective from 7.2.2022), the President of the Constitutional Court appointed Judge Jan Filip as the new Judge-Rapporteur (judgment of 22.2.2022 No. Pl. ÚS 39 / 18-142).
Meritorious review of the proposal
Assessment of competence and constitutional conformity of the procedure for the adoption of the contested provisions
64. When reviewing the constitutionality of the Act, the Constitutional Court assesses whether the contested Act or its individual provisions have been adopted within the limits of the Constitution established competence and the constitutionally prescribed manner, in accordance with Article 68 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No 48 / 2002 Coll.
65. The Constitutional Court concluded that, despite the appellant's objections to the abuse of the institute of parliamentary legislative initiative in the drafting of the amendment to the Line Law (see Sub 6), the legislature cannot be relied upon in this respect. In addition to the possible argument of the Government, it also points to the findings in which it ruled on similar objections concerning the parliamentary initiative or so-called complex amendments [cf. Arguments in the findings of 6.10.2010 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 39 / 08 (N 207 / 59 SbNU 3; 294 / 2010 Coll.) and 30 June 2014 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 21 / 14 (N 122 / 77 SbNU 759; 199 / 2015 Coll.)]. The only consideration of the incoming (but not applicable) objection would be possible from the point of view of the nature of the liner law, which, with its focus, purpose and nature, is closer to the planning rules related to the decision on the implementation of the buildings of transport, energy and water infrastructure needed for the development of the State (see below) or the Act on the State Budget [and the related medium-term outlook of the State Budget under Article 4 (5) of Act 218 / 2000 Coll., on the budgetary rules and on the amendment of certain related laws (budgetary rules)]. However, such a constitutional box is no longer included in our constitutional order (given the nature of parliamentary governance), as Parliament (or the Chamber of Deputies) is necessarily involved in deciding the key issues of the existence and development of the state.
66. The amendment to the Line Act was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution established competence and in a constitutional manner. It is not for the Constitutional Court, when reviewing the constitutionality of the laws, to assess the possible political or other objected purpose of the composition of any group of petitioners, provided that the legislative procedure laid down by the Constitution and the relevant laws is complied with. In detail, the Constitutional Court refers to a description of the progress of the legislative process contained in the above summaries of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate in paragraphs 20 and 21.
67. Nor did the Constitutional Court find any shortcomings in the legislative procedure of the amending Act No. 403 / 2020 Coll. (whose proposal was a government proposal). This law was also adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down by competence and in a constitutional manner. In detail, the Constitutional Court refers to a description of the legislative process contained in the above summaries of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. As mentioned above, the partial amendment of § 2f of the Liner Act by the amendment Act to the Construction Act did not affect the basis and arguments of the appellant. For the sake of completeness, it is added that according to the data from the House of Deputies website, the draft amendment law was (Press 1009). Chamber of Deputies. VIII. Election) after the rejection by the Senate on 1 July 2021 with amendments approved on 13.7.2021 in the version approved by the Chamber of Deputies on 26.5.2021 (99 against 54 of the 168 Members present) pursuant to Article 47 (3) Constitution required by an absolute majority of all Members (for 103 votes - see https: / / www.psp.cz / sqw / hlasy.sqw? G = 76929) and signed by the President of the Republic on 15.7.2021. It was published in the Collection of Laws on 29 July 2021 in the amount of 124.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No 114 / 2022 Coll., on the application for annulment of Sections 1 (1), 2f and 4a, including footnote 15 and the Annex to Act No. 416 / 2009 Coll., on speeding up the construction of transport, water, energy and electronic communications infrastructure (liner law), as amended |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 10.05.2022 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
Legal Areas:
Civil law
Civil law substantive
Public Contracts 1
Smlouva Up Česká republika s.r.o. stravenky a benefity
Městská část Praha 21
Up Česká republika s.r.o.
25.10.2024
Notifications
Source:
Hlídač státu
(CC BY 3.0 CZ)
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0