Found at the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic No. 121 / 1996 Coll.
The finding of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic of 26 March 1996 concerning the application for annulment of Article 2 (1) of Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll., which regulates certain issues related to Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the modification of property relations with land and other agricultural assets, as amended by Act No. 93 / 1992 Coll., as amended by the Constitutional Court Act No. 29 / 1996 Coll.
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
17.05.1996
121
FIND
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic
On behalf of the Czech Republic
On 26 March 1996, the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic decided in plenary on the proposal of the Regional Court in Brno to repeal Article 2 (1) of Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll., which regulates certain issues relating to Law No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the treatment of property relations with land and other agricultural property, as amended by Act No. 93 / 1992 Coll., as amended by the Constitutional Court Act No. 29 / 1996 Coll.
as follows:
Motion denied.
Reasons
On 29 December 1995 the Constitutional Court received a proposal from the Regional Court in Brno to abolish the provisions of § 2 (1) of Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll.
Senate 30 Ca, in the appeal proceedings by MUDr. V. K. against the decision of the District Office in Znojmo, the District Land Office, of 22 August 1994 No 5521 / 92-Ha in the case brought before the Regional Court in Brno under sp. zn. 30 Ca 61 / 95, has concluded, within the meaning of Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, that the provisions of § 2 (1) of Law No 243 / 1992 Coll. are contrary to Article 11 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, pursuant to which it has suspended and brought the case to the Constitutional Court.
In the case decided by the Regional Court in Brno in the context of the appeal proceedings against the decision of the administrative authority, the legal predecessor of the entitled person lost property within the meaning of § 1 (1) (a) of Decree No 12 / 1945 of the President of the Republic Coll. as a person of German nationality, regardless of nationality. The Regional Court in Brno stated in its proposal that in order for the appellant to be regarded as an eligible person under Article 2 (1) of Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll., his legal predecessor would, inter alia, have to regain citizenship under Act No. 194 / 1949 Coll. or Act No. 34 / 1953 Coll., if it had not already been the constitutional decree of the President of the Republic No. 33 / 1945 Coll. In this context, he pointed out that, logically, the re-acquisition of citizenship should always prevent the disappearance of the re-acquisition of citizenship, and it can be concluded that a citizen of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic who has not lost citizenship (and has therefore not acquired citizenship) should not be regarded as an entitled person within the meaning of Article 2 (1) of Act No 243 / 1992 Coll..
The Regional Court in Brno rejects this possibility of interpretation of the contested provision of Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll., according to which the condition for the re-acquisition of citizenship is fulfilled even in cases where the beneficiary has not regained citizenship, for example because it did not lose citizenship at all. In the view of the Court, such an interpretation would constitute a negative of the legal conditions laid down for restitution applicants in their capacity as beneficiaries and claims arising therefrom. In favour of its opinion, it further states that the mitigation of the consequences of certain property injustices does not concern all persons who have lost their property under Decree No. 12 / 1945 Coll. or according to the decree of the President of the Republic No. 108 / 1945 Coll., but, inter alia, only those who have lost their citizenship and have acquired their citizenship under certain legislation.
The Regional Court in Brno therefore concludes that Act No 243 / 1992 Coll. does not apply to persons of German nationality who, although they have lost their property on the basis of the relevant decrees of the President of the Republic, have not lost their citizenship and therefore have not recovered them.
That consequence then considers the court to be contradictory to Article 11 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, because the property of persons of German nationality who have lost their property on the basis of the decrees of the President of the Republic but at the same time have not lost Czechoslovak citizenship is, contrary to such a right of other restituents of German nationality (i.e. those who have lost their citizenship and subsequently acquired it), denied by law.
Pursuant to Articles 42 (3) and 69 of Law No 182 / 1993, the Constitutional Court sent the proposal in question to the Chamber of Deputies. In its observations of 13 February 1996, the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, Dr Milan Uhde, confirmed, in accordance with the requirements contained in the provisions of § 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., that Law No. 243 / 1992 Coll. was approved by the necessary majority of Members of the Czech National Council on 15 April 1992, was signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and duly declared. In the opinion of the President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, the conviction is made on the compliance of the contested provision with constitutional laws and international treaties pursuant to Article 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic. It refers to the fact that the condition for the re-acquisition of citizenship under Act No. 245 / 1948 Coll., Act No. 194 / 1949 Coll., Act No. 34 / 1953 Coll., or under the constitutional decree of the President of the Republic No. 33 / 1945 Coll. was laid down by the legislator in accordance with the purpose of Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll. (§ 1), which is to mitigate the consequences of certain other property injustices arising from the validity or special application of certain laws or on grounds of other reasons in the Czech Republic.
According to Article 42 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll. the Judge-Rapporteur requested as documentary evidence from the Chamber of Deputies the relevant press (No 628, ČNR, VI. of the Election Period, 1992) and the record of the hearing of the Czech National Council Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll.
1. Pursuant to the provisions of § 2 (1) of Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll., as amended, the active legitimacy for the exercise of claims under that Act is given by the State Citizenship, the loss of property according to the Decrees of the President of the Republic No. 12 / 1945 Coll. or No. 108 / 1945 Coll., by no fault against the Czechoslovak State and the re-acquisition of Czechoslovak citizenship under Act No. 245 / 1948 Coll., Act No. 194 / 1949 Coll., Act No. 34 / 1953 Coll., or under the Constitutional Decree of the President of the Republic No. 33 / 1945 Coll.
When examining legal claims pursuant to Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll., as amended, persons who have not lost Czechoslovak citizenship and therefore have not regained them, the first question must be whether or not this group of persons existed or exists.
Under Article 1 (1) (a) of Decree No 12 / 1945 of the President of the Republic Coll., agricultural property owned by all persons of German and Hungarian nationality was confiscated, regardless of nationality. The heading of the persons of German and Hungarian nationality has defined Article 2 of that Decree of the President of the Republic by applying for German or Hungarian nationality in any census since 1929 or by membership in national groups, departments or political parties bringing together German or Hungarian nationals. Similarly, for all movable and immovable property of persons of German and Hungarian nationality, Decree No 108 / 1945 of the President of the Republic Coll. in Paragraph 1 (1) (1).
Pursuant to § 1 (1), (2) of the Constitutional Decree of the President of the Republic No. 33 / 1945 Coll. Czechoslovak citizens of German or Hungarian nationality ceased to be Czechoslovak citizenship, either by acquiring another citizenship under the regulations of the foreign occupation power or by the date on which that constitutional decree of the President of the Republic became effective (i.e. on 10 August 1945). Only those citizens of the German and Hungarian nationalities who registered in the official declaration for the Czechs or Slovaks (§ 1 (3) of the Constitutional Decree No. 33 / 1945 Coll.) at the time of the increased threat to the Republic (§ 18 of the Presidential Decree No. 16 / 1945 Coll.), as well as those who proved that they had nothing to do with the Czechoslovak Republic and participated in an active anti-fascist resistance or suffered under fascist or Nazi terror (§ 2 (1) of Constitutional Decree No. 33 / 1945 Coll.).
It follows from the comparison of the President of the Republic Decrees No. 12 / 1945 Coll. and No. 108 / 1945 Coll. with Constitutional Decree No. 33 / 1945 Coll. that a group of persons of German and Hungarian nationality, who did not lose Czechoslovak citizenship, but who seized their property.
2. In view of the assessment of the restitution entitlements of persons who have not lost and therefore have not recovered Czechoslovak citizenship, the provision on the condition of re-acquisition of citizenship contained in § 2 (1) of Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll., as amended, allows double interpretation in its application: the first on the basis of argument and contrario, the second on the basis of argument and minori ad maius.
The argument to the contrary, on the basis of which he interpreted Article 2 (1) of Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll., as amended, the Regional Court in Brno, necessarily leads to the conclusion that failure to comply with the conditions for re-acquisition of citizenship results in a lack of active legitimacy for the application of claims under the Act cited. However, the argument from smaller to larger leads to the opposite conclusion (according to this argument, if the standard provides an authorisation associated with a smaller framework of its justification, the more so it provides in the existence of a more serious framework).
The constitutional interpretation of the provisions of § 2 (1) of Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll., as amended, has already been addressed by the Constitutional Court in the context under consideration, in proceedings concerning constitutional complaints.
In the decision of 4 October 1995 sp. zn. II. ÚS 22 / 94 The Constitutional Court stated that "if the property is returned under Law 243 / 1992 to those who, according to the decree, have lost it and were deprived of citizenship and then acquired it, it must be returned, all the more so, to those who did not need to be returned, because they did not lose citizenship because of their certain behaviour. A different interpretation would completely contradict the principles of restitution laws, which are aimed at partially correcting the injustices and not at compensating for loss of citizenship." He interpreted the provisions of § 2 (1) of Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll. The Constitutional Court, also in the decision of 12 October 1995 sp. zn. III. ÚS 39 / 95, when the interpretation, excluding persons of German and Hungarian nationality who had not lost Czechoslovak citizenship, referred to the restitution rights under Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll. as "discriminatory" and "contrary to the intention of the legislator expressed in § 1 of Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll."
The Constitutional Court also persists in assessing the compliance of the provisions of Article 2 (1) of Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll., as amended, with the constitutional laws and international treaties under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic on the position expressed in the present case of the Constitutional Court in the present case and its grounds, i.e. that the contrary interpretation of Article 2 (1) of Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll., as amended, would be discriminatory and contradictory with the purpose of that Act.
In a situation where a provision of legislation allows two different interpretations, one complying with the constitutional laws and international treaties provided for in Article 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic and the other contradicts them, there is no reason to repeal that provision. It is for the courts to interpret the provision in a constitutional manner when applying it.
In view of the above reasons, the Constitutional Court rejected the application of the Regional Court in Brno to abolish the provisions of § 2 (1) of Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll., as amended, pursuant to § 70 (2) of Law No. 182 / 1993 Coll..
President of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The finding of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic No. 121 / 1996 Coll., on the application for annulment of § 2 paragraph 1 of Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll., which regulates certain issues related to Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the modification of property relations with land and other agricultural property, as amended by Act No. 93 / 1992 Coll., as amended by the Constitutional Court Act No. 29 / 1996 Coll. |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 17.05.1996 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0