The Constitutional Court found No 132 / 2025 Coll.
Findings of the Constitutional Court sp. zn.
Valid
Zobrazeno prvních 200 z celkem 277 ustanovení tohoto předpisu.
Zobrazit celý předpis →
Pro stažení celého znění použijte tlačítko Stáhnout výše.
132
FIND
The Constitutional Court
of 2 April 2025
sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 15 / 24 concerning the application for annulment of § 10 paragraph 2 in the number "5" of Act No. 96 / 1993 Coll., on Construction Savings and State Support of Construction Savings, as amended by Act No. 349 / 2023 Coll., and Article XXII of Act No. 349 / 2023 Coll., amending certain laws in connection with the consolidation of public budgets
On behalf of the Republic
The Constitutional Court decided under sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 15 / 24 on 2 April 2025 in plenary composed of the President of the Court of Josef Boxy and judges and judges of Lucie Dolanská Bányai, Josef Fiala, Milan Hulmák (Judge of the Rapporteur), Jaromír Jirsa, Veronica Christian, Zdeněk Kühn, Tomáš Langášek, Jiří Píbán, Kateřina Ronovské, Dita Řepková, Jan Světona, Pavel Šámal, Jan Wintra and Daniela Zeman, on the proposal from the Parliament of the Czech Parliament of 71, on behalf of the Chamber of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, for which is represented by Mr JUDr Alena Schiller, Ph.D., represented by Mgr. Davidem Rašovský, a lawyer of the Czech Republic, on 23.
as follows:
Motion denied.
Reasons
Application for revocation of individual legal provisions and their wording
1. By a proposal pursuant to Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "Constitution") and Article 64 (1) (b) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, a group of 71 Members (hereinafter referred to as "the draftsman"), the Constitutional Court proposed that the number "5" in Section 10 (2) of the Act No. 96 / 1993 Coll., on building savings and State aid for building savings, as amended by Act No. 349 / 2023 Coll. (hereinafter referred to as "the Act on construction conservation") and Article XXII of Act No. 349 / 2023 Coll., amending certain laws in connection with the consolidation of public budgets.
2. The text of the contested provisions is as follows:
(i) Paragraph 10 (2) of the Building Savings Act, in which the number "5" is contested, reads: "The advance on State aid granted amounts to 5% of the amount saved in the relevant calendar year, but not more than CZK 20 000."
(ii) Article XXII of Act No. 349 / 2023 Coll., entitled "Transitional provision," reads: "Paragraph 10 of Act No. 96 / 1993 Coll., as effective from the date of entry into force of this Act, shall apply to a building savings contract regardless of the date on which the contract was concluded. This shall be without prejudice to claims for State aid arising before the date of entry into force of this Law. '
3. In addition, the Constitutional Court states that Paragraph 10 (2) of the Act on Construction Savings, as amended by Act No. 303 / 2013 Coll. (i.e. before the contested amendment), provided that the advance on State aid granted was 10% of the amount saved in the relevant calendar year, but not more than CZK 20 000. This legislation was effective until 31 December 2023.
Arguments of the appellant
4. The applicant opposes a reduction in the amount of State aid granted to the participants in the building savings in the form of advances from 10% to 5% of the saved amount in the relevant calendar year, but not more than CZK 20,000 (i.e. from an amount of CZK 2,000 per year to CZK 1,000 per year). According to the contested Article XXII of Act No 349 / 2023 Coll., this reduction, according to the appellant, took place with the effects of false retroactivity. It therefore objects to the infringement of Article 1 (1) and (2), Articles 9 (2), 10 and 10a of the Constitution; Articles 1, 3 (1) and 11 (1), (3) and (4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Charter); Article 1 Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, published under No 209 / 1992 Coll., hereinafter referred to as the Additional Protocol to the Convention; Article 11 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, published under No 120 / 1976 Coll., hereinafter referred to as "the Covenant '; Article 16 of the European Social Charter, published under No 14 / 2000 Coll.; Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (" the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU').
5. According to the appellant, the system of building savings is characterised by an interest and relative closure. This includes not only the possibility for participants to apply for an assigned loan ("the credit part ') but also the possibility of their mere participation in the building savings (" the savings part'). According to it, the savings part is crucial for the functioning of the building savings system.
6. The appellant is convinced that building savings are an essential instrument of ensuring the fundamental right to housing. The right of residence is enshrined in Article 11 (1) of the Pact and Article 16 of the European Social Charter, which are considered by the Constitutional Court as so-called international human rights treaties and as such are part of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic [Found sp. zn. According to the appellant, it is completely irrelevant that the legislator did not include the right of residence in the catalogue of fundamental rights and freedoms, as it is "recognised 'in the case law of the Constitutional Court [FTC 3 / 2000, p. The appellant sees it as the right of every individual to an adequate standard of living for him and his family, including sufficient nutrition, clothing and apartment, and the right to constantly improve his living conditions. In this context, it also states that housing promotion is one of the important policies of the current government, which is openly and repeatedly committed to it.
7. According to the appellant, the objective of State aid for building savings is to fulfil (a) social functions, that is to provide financial support for low-income persons, and (b) incentive functions, that is to make building savings more attractive to potential savers. Both functions correspond to the international obligations of the Czech Republic.
8. At the same time, the appellant stresses that State aid for building savings is not part of the social support system. On the contrary, this is a contractual relationship between the three parties, which is not subject to the rules of procedure. In this relationship, the State acts as the third "indirect participant '(party) of the contract, which, by its decisions, affects the entire system of building savings and interferes with the assets and legitimate expectations of all other participants. As the reduction in State aid will inevitably result in a delay in the time at which the target amount is reached, the State has violated the legitimate expectations of the building savings participants. In addition, the appellant submits that the level of State aid for building savings is constantly falling.
9. While, according to the appellant, the State respected the principle of pacta sunt servanda for the first reduction of State aid and did not intervene in existing construction savings contracts (i.e. the reduction only concerned newly concluded contracts), it did not do so for the second and third reductions and retroactively intervened in existing construction savings contracts. Thus, it infringed the legitimate expectations of the participants. Although the legislature's procedure in relation to the second reduction has been addressed by the Constitutional Court in the decision of the sp. v. Pl. ÚS 53 / 10 of 19.4.2011 (N 75 / 61 SbNU 137; 119 / 2011 Coll.), the appellant considers that it is necessary to deviate from the conclusions expressed there because:
(i) the passage of time;
(ii) a different legal context;
(iii) a different economic context;
(iv) inseparable links between State aid for building savings and the right to housing, as explained above.
10. On the different legal context of the case, the appellant submits that, since the adoption of the finding in sp. zn. The level of consumer protection has increased since 2010-2011; adoption of the new Civil Code (Act No. 89 / 2012 Coll.) and the Consumer Credit Act (Act No. 257 / 2016 Coll.); numerous amendments to the Consumer Protection Act (Act No. 634 / 1992 Coll.); definition of unfair and aggressive business practices, misleading behaviour in the sale of products, introduction of new sales obligations, etc. There has also been a significant shift in consumer protection at European Union level. Consumer protection is guaranteed by Article 38 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The European Commission has declared the uniform and effective application of consumer law across the Member States of the European Union as one of its priorities. A number of consumer protection regulations and directives have been adopted, which have become part of national law. The European Commission has also adopted and published a communication to the European Parliament and to the Council entitled "New Consumer Programme '.
11. Despite this development in the field of consumer protection, participants in the building savings contract are "locked ', in particular as a result of its purpose. As compared to other consumer contracts, participants cannot use the procedure under Paragraph 1752 (1) of the Civil Code in response to a reduction in the amount of State aid (note - the provisions governing the possibility of changing the terms of trade for contracts concluded by a trader with a larger number of persons and which are liable to replenish the same type), although" a change of such a substantial nature would give the consumer the right to refuse such a change in the case of another consumer contract and therefore give notice without consequence'. At the same time, building savings participants do not even enjoy benefits that could compensate for these disadvantages. The appellant therefore considers that the participants in the building savings as consumers are adequately protected, which should reach the same level as for other consumer contracts. However, the State has fundamentally changed the terms of the contract, which it is an "indirect participant ', by its" supreme intervention'. According to the appellant, "it is in complete conflict with the fundamental rules of the rule of law and contract law that one of the participants, albeit indirectly, should fundamentally change the terms of the contractual relationship of other participants and, on the one hand, remove the remainder of the benefits of the contractual relationship and, on the other hand, not allow the participants to withdraw from the contractual relationship without penalty '.
12. In a different economic context, the appellant argues that the unfavourable economic situation and its associated interest in maintaining the stability of public finances were one of the main reasons why the Constitutional Court, in its finding in sp. zn. But the current economic situation is different. In this context, it points out that the amount paid for State aid in recent years (about CZK 4.2 billion per year) represented only a fraction of the total expenditure of the state budget (about CZK 2,223 billion per year). Only CZK 2.2 billion per year can be expected to be saved after the reduction of State aid. According to the appellant, this is just a drop in the sea.
13. The appellant further contends that the contested provisions of the Act have intervened in the legitimate expectations of the participants in the building savings, the principle of legal certainty, the principle of equality and the principle of pacta sunt servanda, thereby violating the fundamental right to the protection of property under Article 11 of the Charter and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention and Article 1 (1) of the Constitution. Consequently, it points out that the principle of legal certainty, clarity, predictability and certainty of the law are among the principles of the rule of law [the finding of sp. zn. In its view, inter alia, from the finding of sp. zn. However, this condition has not been fulfilled in the case of the contested provisions of the law.
14. In relation to the finding of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 5 / 19, the appellant also states that the Constitutional Court has clearly applied to the principle of pacta sunt servanda (principle that contracts are to be implemented) under Article 1 (1) of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court has prohibited this finding of the State from reducing the performance of contracts concluded and implemented by law, namely in the form of taxation of church restitutions. It considers that the State, in a similar unacceptable manner, is retroactively reducing the performance of existing contracts.
15. The appellant also points out the case law of the Constitutional Court, which implies that public authorities are not allowed to proceed in any way [finding sp. zn.
16. For all the above reasons, the appellant proposes that the Constitutional Court annul the contested provisions of the law.
Observation of the tenderer, intervener and amicorum curiae, replica of the appellant
Observation by Parliament of the Czech Republic as party to the proceedings
17. The Constitutional Court, pursuant to Article 69 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 18 / 2020 Coll., requested the observations of the two chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic acting on its behalf (§ 9 of Act No. 300 / 2017 Coll., on the principles of the negotiation and relations of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate between themselves and externally and amending Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll., on the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, as amended), i.e. the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.
18. The Chamber of Deputies described the course of the legislative process leading to the adoption of Act No. 349 / 2023 Coll., amending, inter alia, to the contested extent Article 10 (2) of the Building Savings Act and also the contested Article XXII - "Transitional provision." In this context, it stated that the draft amendment law was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies on 30 June 2023 in the 9th parliamentary term as House Press No. 488. At first reading, he was ordered to discuss the relevant committees of the Chamber of Deputies. At second reading, all the amendments tabled were incorporated. The third reading took place at the 77th meeting of the Chamber of Deputies on 22 September, 27 September, 11 October and 13 October 2023. In the final vote, 108 voted in favour of its adoption and 86 of the 194 Members present. The bill was subsequently passed on to the Senate, which approved it. The President signed it on 22 November 2023. On 12. 12. 2023 the law was published in the Collection of Laws under number 349 / 2023 Coll. The Chamber of Deputies therefore considers that that law has been passed by the necessary majority of Members, signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and duly declared.
19. The Senate also merely described the legislative process leading to the adoption of the contested amendment to the Building Savings Act. As a result, he stressed that the bill was passed to him by the Chamber of Deputies and was subsequently ordered to discuss the relevant committees. Although some of the committees recommended that the Senate adopt an accompanying resolution or a bill to return the bill to the Chamber of Deputies, none of these recommendations concerned building savings. The bill was subsequently discussed in detail in the Senate, but it also did not concern the issue of building savings. After the debate, the Senate adopted a bill as referred to by the Chamber of Deputies. 53 and 10 of the 74 senators present and the senators opposed him. In the light of the above, the Senate considers that it acted in a constitutionally consistent manner when discussing the draft law.
Government's observations as interveners
20. The Constitutional Court, pursuant to Article 69 (2) and (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended, has called on the Government to inform it within the prescribed time limit whether it is intervening and, where appropriate, to comment on the application. The government has decided to intervene. It sent its observations on the application to the Constitutional Court together with the Notice of Accession.
21. First, it stated that there was an obstacle to the case decided under Paragraph 35 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, since the Constitutional Court had already ruled on the same case by finding sp. zn. It therefore proposes that the proposal be rejected as inadmissible. In case that doesn't happen, she suggested rejecting him.
Incorrect retroactivity of the contested legislation and proportionality test
22. The Government states that in the present case it is an improper retroactivity that is generally permissible (find sp. zn. False retroactivity is only exceptionally unacceptable if the principle of protection of trust in law so requires. The admissibility of false retroactivity must be assessed by the proportionality test.
23. As regards the first step of the proportionality test, the criterion of appropriateness, the Government states that the contested provisions of the law followed a legitimate public interest in reducing the deficit of the state budget and ensuring the stability of public finances. As regards the existence of a legitimate objective in the form of a need to stabilise public finances, it notes that, in comparison with 2009 (i.e. the period before the second reduction in the amount of State aid which was examined by the Constitutional Court in the decision of sp. zn. The general government deficit of 5,4% of gross domestic product (GDP) was reached in 2009, while in 2020 it was 5,8% of GDP and in 2021 it was 5,1% of GDP. Under the so-called Maastricht border of 3% of GDP, the general government deficit should not be due to austerity measures until 2024. In 2009, the government debt was 35,2% of GDP (revised back to 33,4% of GDP), while in 2020 it was already 37,7% of GDP and in 2021 it was even 41,9% of GDP. In view of this, steps had to be taken to improve the state of public finances.
24. As regards the appropriateness of the measures taken to achieve this legitimate objective, the Government notes that Law No 349 / 2023 Coll. dealt with the issue of the consolidation of public budgets comprehensively, not only in relation to building savings. This objective was also pursued by other review laws, such as Act No. 71 / 2023 Coll., amending Act No. 155 / 1995 Coll., on Pension Insurance, as amended, and some other laws, which have recently been found to be constitutionally conformal by sp. zn. The Government therefore calls for the contested measures to be seen in the overall context and assessed by the overriding synergy of the sub-measures to improve the state of public finances. Although the reduction of national budget expenditure by CZK 2 billion per year may not appear to be essential, in conjunction with other measures, a reduction of the national budget balance could be achieved by CZK 97.7 billion in 2024 and another CZK 53 billion in 2025.
25. Moreover, the Government points out that if the reduction in the amount of State aid for building savings were to apply only to newly concluded contracts, the risk would arise of the so-called "frontloading" effect, i.e. the rapid conclusion of contracts with the possibility of obtaining State aid in an unreduced amount. The fact that the State aid for building savings is, according to the findings of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 53 / 10, which cannot be relied upon to be reassessed over time, cannot be ignored.
26. On the second step of the proportionality test, the criterion of necessity, the Government states that there was no other, more gentle solution in the situation that could achieve the stated objective. The alternative was either the resignation of any austerity measure, or the reduction of State aid only in relation to newly concluded construction savings contracts, which, in view of the so-called frontloading effect, could lead to increased State budget expenditure. As regards the need to restore public finances in the narrower sense, the stable state of public finances, according to the government, has a wide positive social impact. As a result, it also creates space for free decision-making by the State in the field of fiscal and subsidy policy, including space for other housing promotion instruments to be used.
27. As regards the third step in the proportionality test, the criterion of proportionality, the Government states that the above-defined public interest must be measured by interference with the rights and interests of individuals expressed, inter alia, in the principle of legal certainty and legitimate trust in law. However, these principles cannot be reconciled with the requirement for absolute lawlessness. The legal order is subject to social and economic change and other changes, therefore it is not possible to stop [finding sp. zn. Moreover, the abolition of the old and the adoption of the new legislation is necessarily linked to the interference with the principles of equality and the protection of the citizen's trust in law [finding sp. zn. However, the resolution of the time conflict between the old and the new legislation is, from a constitutional point of view, not by chance or by the legislature, but by contrast, to be the result of consideration of a collision of protected values (the finding of the PSC 21 / 96). The principles of legal certainty and the protection of the individual's trust in law could not be significantly distorted in this case, as the reduction in the amount of State aid had already taken place twice in the past, in 2003 and 2010. Therefore, the participants in the building savings could hardly rely on the lawlessness of the legislation. Moreover, State aid is only a bonus, not a key element of building savings; the primary objective of negotiating a building savings contract is not to obtain it.
28. The government also disputes the appellant's assertion that construction savings are social. It considers that construction savings are more used by households with higher income, which is evidenced by an increase in the average target amount from CZK 470 000 to CZK 870 000 in the last five years. The reduction in the amount of State aid will therefore have an absolutely negligible impact on the benefits of building savings or on the length of the saving period required to achieve the target amount. Moreover, the participants are not "locked 'in the contract for a period of 6 years, as the appellant claims. The six-year binding period does not relate to the participant's ability to dispose of the contract, but to the possibility of State aid.
29. During the adoption of Amendment Act No. 349 / 2023 Coll. also the effects on the sector of construction savings banks were considered. However, the government has concluded that this is not a disproportionate threat to the sector. Despite the closure of the building savings system, construction savings banks receive financial resources within their banking groups, not only from the building savings participants. The report on financial stability issued by the Czech National Bank does not imply that risks will increase in the building savings sector. The Government therefore considers that the proportionality test criteria have been met.
Consumer protection
30. In its observations, the Government makes extensive arguments as to why it considers the development of consumer protection legislation irrelevant to the issue of State aid for building savings. It states that each of these institutes has a different function and aims to protect other entities and other interests and concerns other relationships. The principle of consumer protection cannot be linked to State activities in the form of State aid, tax relief, etc.
Right of residence
31. The Government notes that it is aware of the international obligations of the Czech Republic under Article 11 (1) of the Pact and Article 16 of the European Social Charter. It is also aware of the conclusions resulting from the finding in point II.II. Even in response to this, the government has taken the following steps to support vulnerable housing groups:
(i) At its meeting on 12 July 2024, it adopted a draft law on the granting of certain housing promotion measures (Housing Promotion Act), which should provide the vulnerable groups with the necessary support for housing.
(ii) It created a programme of preferential interest rates (cca. 2 p. b. below the long-term rate) for the construction of available rental housing, which will enable the future provision of rental housing below its market level (up to 90% of the usual rent). This program currently has about CZK 8 billion and is connected with resources from the National Recovery Plan.
(iii) It created a preferential interest rate program, combined with a subsidy to revitalise older family houses threatened by high energy spending due to energy shortages. The volume of resources provided under preferential loans is CZK 5 billion for the following 2 to 3 years; the same amount of funding is provided under the grant part of the programme.
32. The Government states, as regards the content and scope of the right to housing, that, in accordance with the case law of the Constitutional Court, it can be interpreted as a right towards social housing as an instrument for protecting the weaker. On the contrary, they cannot be interpreted as providing an adequate standard of living to individuals in accordance with their requirements, but only a certain minimum social standard. State aid for building savings does not provide the right to housing. In addition, the State has the choice of how it will fulfil its international obligations, with building savings in this area only performing a subsidiary function in relation to other instruments. According to the Government, it is also common that a number of participants in building savings do not use the funds stored in it for housing needs, but only see it as a saving tool.
Right to peaceful use of property
33. The Government contends that the contested provisions of the Act could not have infringed neither Article 11 (1) of the Charter nor Article 1 (1) of the Additional Protocol to the Convention. The claim for State aid is not a claim for a contractual relationship, but a claim for a State which is established directly by the Act on Construction Savings. This entitlement does not arise when a building savings contract is signed, but is fulfilled according to the amount actually saved in the year. The State shall then fulfil its obligation by referring the relevant amount to the account of the building savings bank which records the funds in the account of the participant until they become its own income at the time of payment. The contested provisions therefore do not affect any property of the participants in the building savings, since this property has not yet been created, i.e. it is not existing property.
Principle of equality
34. In conclusion, the Government states that the reference to the finding of the sp. zn. By Act No. 428 / 2012 Coll., on property settlement with churches and religious societies and on the amendment of certain laws (Act on property settlement with churches and religious societies), (hereinafter referred to as "the Law on property settlement"), the objectives were pursued entirely different and this law was built on a different basis than the Act on building savings.
Communication from the Ombudsman
35. The Constitutional Court, pursuant to § 69 (2) and (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended, invited the Ombudsman to state within the statutory period of time whether he was intervening and, if necessary, to comment on the application.
36. The Ombudsman informed the Constitutional Court that he did not intervene.
Expression of the Association of Czech Construction Savings Schemes as amici curiae
37. The Constitutional Court has requested from the Association of Czech Construction Savings Schemes (hereinafter referred to as "ACSS" or "Association"), which brings together the building savings banks active on the Czech market, a statement or reply to the Constitutional Court of the questions formulated. According to Articles 48 (1) and 49 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act, it considered that the association could have the necessary data to consider the proposal.
38. The Association provided the Constitutional Court with various statistical data, in particular. It commented on the total number of construction savings contracts with a claim for State aid in the years 2019- 2024. This number ranged from 3,008 764 contracts in 2019 to 2,513 778 contracts in 2024; of which between 14,5% (in 2021) and 16,6% (in 2019) of credit agreements.
39. In addition, the association indicated that from 60% (in 2021 and 2022) to 64% (in 2019) of the participants in the building savings account, they entered a maximum amount of CZK 20,000 per year during the six-year binding period.
40. The Association also provided the Constitutional Court with data on the average and median amount of the target amount for construction savings contracts that were newly concluded by natural persons in 2019- 2024 (see Table 1). It also provided the Constitutional Court with data on the statistical distribution (distribution) of the target amounts for newly concluded contracts in the years 2019- 2024.
Tab. 1
| Výše cílové částky u smluv o stavebním spoření nově uzavřených fyzickými osobami v letech 2019–2024 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | |
| Průměr (Kč) | 437 328 | 464 776 | 877 267 | 663 614 | 951 743 | 858 681 |
| Medián (Kč) | 225 035 | 200 000 | 220 616 | 439 470 | 451 015 | 479 122 |
41. In the Association's observations, calculations of the net proceeds of the building savings (i.e. after counting all relevant interest, State aid, fees, taxes, etc.) were also provided in three variants. First, if a participant had saved about CZK 20,000 a year for the entire six-year binding period and received 10% of that amount each year, i.e. at the level laid down in the previous legislation, it would have saved CZK 137 035 at the end of the binding period. This represents a net return of around 4,39% per year. Secondly, if a participant would receive 5% of the State aid each year under otherwise identical conditions, i.e. at the level set by the current contested legislation, at the end of the binding period it would save CZK 130 556. This represents a net return of around 2,8% per year. Thirdly, if a participant were to receive 10% State aid for the first three years and only 5% for the next three years, it would have saved CZK 133 988 at the end of the binding period. This represents a net return of around 3,65% per year.
42. The Association also commented on other facts. It provided the Constitutional Court, inter alia, with information on the conditions under which a building savings participant may achieve a reduction in the target amount; whether participants (monthly) must deposit a certain amount in the account and what penalties are possibly linked to failure to comply with this obligation; what part of the participants will benefit from the possibility of a one-off contribution of the full amount necessary to obtain State aid at maximum and the subsequent transfer of excess savings to subsequent years; and what part of the participants who use only the so-called saving part of the building savings will use the saved funds to meet the housing needs. However, for various reasons (inaccuracy, incompleteness, inreliability of the source or redundancy), the Constitutional Court has hardly worked with these data, which is why it is not necessary to recap them in detail.
Expression of the Ministry of Finance as amici curiae
43. The Constitutional Court requested observations or replies from the Ministry of Finance (hereinafter referred to as the "Ministry") in the Constitutional Court. According to the Act on Construction Savings, the Ministry approves the general commercial conditions of the building savings banks (§ 7 (1)), exercises supervision of their compliance (§ 9a (1)), processes requests for and payment of annual advances of State aid (§ 9a (1) in conjunction with § 11 (2), etc.), which is why there was a presumption that it would have the data needed to assess the proposal.
44. The Ministry expressed its views on the total number of construction savings contracts with claimed state aid in the years 2019- 2023, ranging from about 2 736 000 contracts in 2023 to about 3 124 000 contracts in 2020. Of these, from 15,6% (in 2021) to 17,7% (in 2019) of credit agreements.
45. The Ministry also provided the Constitutional Court with data on the average amount of the target amount for newly concluded construction savings contracts in the years 2019- 2023 and for the first three quarters of 2024. The average target amounts ranged from CZK 431 000 (in 2019) to CZK 873 000 (in 2023).
46. In addition, the Ministry provided the Constitutional Court with model calculations of the net proceeds of the building savings (i.e. after all relevant interest, State aid, taxes, taxes, etc.) in three variants (see Table 2). The calculations were based on a monthly deposit of CZK 1,700, i.e. a deposit of CZK 20 400 a year or CZK 122 400 within six years.
Table 2
| Úspory za šest let (Kč) | Čistý výnos za šest let (Kč) | Čistý roční výnos (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Státní podpora ve výši 10 % | 139 196 | 16 796 | 4,2 |
| Státní podpora ve výši 5 % | 132 964 | 10 564 | 2,7 |
| Státní podpora první tři roky ve výši 10 % a další tři roky ve výši 5 % | 136 156 | 13 756 | 3,5 |
47. The Ministry further stated that the conditions for reducing the target amount were not systematically monitored. However, it has been established from the current general commercial conditions that the construction savings banks allow the reduction of the target amount but may refuse to do so. Most building savings banks declare the possibility of reducing it for free; only one building savings bank charges 1% of the difference between the target amounts.
48. In order to have an obligation (monthly) to deposit a certain amount in an account, it stated that neither the minimum amount nor the periodicity of the deposit was legally limited. However, building savings banks often negotiate in the building savings contract the minimum amount and the periodicity of the deposit as well as penalties for non-compliance with this obligation. However, it is not known to the Ministry that the construction savings banks would enforce these arrangements on the part of the participants, nor does it record any initiatives in this case.
49. Further requested information was not available to the Ministry of Finance.
The Czech National Bank's statement as amici curiae
50. The Constitutional Court also asked the Czech National Bank an identical set of questions as it considered that it could have the data needed to consider the proposal within the meaning of Articles 48 (1) and 49 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act. However, it merely informed the Constitutional Court that it did not have the requested information and referred it to the Ministry of Finance.
Replication of the appellant
51. The Constitutional Court sent all the above observations to the appellant. At the same time, he advised her of the possibility of responding to them within the time limit set. The appellant took this opportunity.
52. The appellant first questioned the Government's argument that there is an obstacle to the matter judged, since the same proposal was already decided by the finding of sp. zn. It stated that the proposal now under consideration is against the different provisions of the law and is based on different arguments. More importantly, a considerable period has elapsed since the issue of the sp. zn. Following this, the appellant reiterated its arguments to the consumer protection parties and to the dynamic development of the financial market.
53. It also expressed its views on the argument of the Government of the parties to the conditions (not) the admissibility of false retroactivity. It stated that it does not agree with the Government's assertion that the contested provisions of the law meet the criterion of suitability, since "the argument of finding spis. There has been a fundamental change in economic and social circumstances in this respect. As the appellants point out in detail already in their proposal, while public finance savings were marginal compared to 2010, intervention in the rights and legitimate expectations of the participants in construction savings contracts was, on the contrary, much more pronounced." It considers that even under normal inflation conditions the real valuation of deposits without State aid is negative.
54. Furthermore, the appellant stated that the contested amendment infringes the right to peaceful use of property and the principles of the rule of law (including its essential requirements), due to the failure by the State to respect the principle of pacta sunt servanda as an indirect participant in the building savings contract, the principle of predictability of the law and the legitimate expectations of the building savings participants. It considers that the State has abused its (privileged) position and the power to legislate to intervene as an indirect participant in the contract in the legitimate expectations of other building savings participants. This was to be done by constitutionally forbidden lizards and arbitrariness. This is all the more serious in relation to long-term contracts. His progress was unparalleled. The appellant also questioned a number of government sub-claims.
55. On the comments made by the chambers of Parliament of the Czech Republic, the appellant stated that there was nothing to respond to in principle.
56. In addition to the comments of the Association of Czech Construction Savings Bank, the Ministry of Finance and the Czech National Bank only in a few sentences, it stated that "the data provided by the promoters support the claims they make in their proposal. Construction savings contracts are used for their purpose, i.e. to provide basic housing needs, in the vast majority of cases according to the expert estimate of the Association of Czech Construction Savings. A significant part of the participants also use these contracts to obtain a loan from the building savings. These data are of a factual nature, but they confirm that construction savings contracts are not used for any other purpose, as indicated in their observations by the [v] láda. They also confirm the legal arguments set out in detail in their proposal and referred to."
57. For all the above reasons, the appellant maintained its proposal to repeal the contested provisions of the law.
Proceedings
58. The Constitutional Court assessed the procedural assumptions of the proceedings and found that the application had been lodged by a legitimate appellant [Paragraph 64 (1) (b) of the Constitutional Court Act]. The Constitutional Court shall have jurisdiction in its proceedings. The proposal is not inadmissible within the meaning of Section 66 of the Constitutional Court Act, as amended. The reason for the termination of proceedings under Section 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., did not occur.
59. However, the Constitutional Court had to examine in more detail the question of compliance with the requirements of Sections 34 (1) and 35 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act.
Content of the application pursuant to Article 34 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act
60. The appellant contends that it is unconstitutional and requires the annulment of the provisions of two different, albeit interconnected, provisions of the Act, namely § 10 (2) of the Act on Construction Savings in the number "5" and Article XXII (Transitional provision) of Act No 349 / 2023 Coll. However, this fact does not reflect in its proposal - it does not separate the individual objections of the parties to the alleged unconstitutionality of the individual provisions of the law and does not even state whether these objections relate to all or only one of the contested provisions. This deficiency was not eliminated by the appellant in its later statements, rather the contrary.
61. In this context, the Constitutional Court reiterates that, however, when assessing the constitutional conformity of the Act or its individual provisions, it is bound only by a petition [for example, the finding of 24.5.1994 sp. zn. Pl. Pl. ÚS 16 / 93 (N 25 / 1 SbNU 189; 131 / 1994 Coll.]], that does not mean that the appellant in the procedure for the control of standards, arguing that the content of the Law with a constitutional order does not weigh the burden of allegation under Paragraph 34 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court [for example, the finding of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS. 44 / 17 of 2. 2021 (N 20 / 104 SbNU 191; 49 / 2021 Sb.), paragraph 121; In other words, if the appellant is opposed to the fact that the law or part of it is not in conformity with the constitutional order, for the purposes of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, only the designation of the law proposed for annulment or part thereof is not sufficient. The proposal shall also clearly and clearly state the reasons for its unconstitutionality, which shall relate to each of the contested laws or parts thereof.
62. In this respect, the Constitutional Court refers, for example, to the finding of sp. zn. It stated here that it is not sufficient to object only to some of the contested provisions of the law, with a detailed and unspecified reference, that the remaining provisions of the law give rise to their unconstitutionality as a result of the "internal continuity 'of the law. The Constitutional Court then took the legal view that arguments which, without any apparent distinction, accumulate the objections of the constitutional deficit of the legislative process and the content objections could not be accepted. The only exception to this approach is the finding of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 44 / 17 (paragraphs 121 and 122). If the appellant cannot bear the burden of allegation of unconstitutionality, such a proposal cannot be regarded as contradictory with Paragraph 34 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act and thus as ineligible for a meritative assessment (paragraph 121).
63. In view of the above case-law, the Constitutional Court had to consider whether the proposal fulfilled the legally required content requirements. As mentioned above, the appellant challenges two different provisions, one of which relates to the amount of State aid for building savings (Section 10 (2) of the Building Savings Act) and the other intertemporal effects of the amendment to the Building Savings Act (Article XXII of Act No 349 / 2023 Coll.). Although there is no denying their consistency, it is clear that this is a provision with a significantly different content. It is therefore hardly conceivable that the two provisions under appeal would have given the same reasons for (alleged) unconstitutionality, or that the same objections could have been raised in relation to them.
64. In general, it is not for the Constitutional Court to think of the appellant as which objection of unconstitutionality could be most appropriate or most convincing in relation to any of the contested provisions of the law. This obligation, or the burden of the claim, is borne by the appellant. It is only in this way that appropriate scope can be provided for the application of the principle that the definition of the subject-matter - both in relation to the definition of the heading of the contested provisions (petitions) and, in principle, in relation to the alleged grounds of their unconstitutionality - is available in the procedural form of the appellant (Opinion No. 2. výd. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2007, p. 161). In addition, only the proper definition of the subject matter of the proceedings in the application will enable the parties and interveners to exercise their procedural rights effectively under Section 32 of the Constitutional Court Act, for example, to comment on the application to initiate proceedings or to propose evidence.
65. In spite of the above, the Constitutional Court concludes that the proposal under examination still complies with the requirements of Paragraph 34 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act. Although the various objections of the parties to the alleged unconstitutionality of the individual provisions of the law are not distinguished in any way in the proposal, let alone clearly, and prima facie it is not clear which of the contested provisions they relate to, this can be inferred - albeit not without problems - from their content. The intertemporal problem (Article XXII of Act No 349 / 2023 Coll.) is sufficiently different from the question which may trigger a change in the amount of state aid for building savings (Section 10 (2) of the Building Savings Act), so that the objections relating to which provision of the Act can be distinguished by the Constitutional Court despite the fact that it does not do so - although it should - by the author herself.
Obstacle of a case judged pursuant to § 35 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act and the finding of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 53 / 10
66. The Government, as an intervener, also objected to the judgment (rei iudicatae) and proposed the rejection of the application for inadmissibility under Paragraph 35 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act.
67. Article 89 (2) The constitutions are enforceable findings of the Constitutional Court binding on all institutions and persons, including the Constitutional Court [cf., for example, the finding of sp. zn. III. ÚS 425 / 97 of 2.4.1998 (N 42 / 10 SbNU 285)].
68. The internal obligations of the Constitutional Court's case-law are manifested in particular in Paragraph 35 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, according to which the application to initiate proceedings is inadmissible if it concerns a case already decided by the Constitutional Court. The obstacle to a case of judgment (res iudicata) prevents the Constitutional Court from taking a decision on the same matter over and over again. In proceedings before the Constitutional Court, questions already resolved in fact and legally identical cases cannot be re-opened. The Constitutional Court has the power to give authoritative interpretation of the constitutional order definitively, it is not a place for continuous controversy with the reasons for the decision already stated [cf., generally in a different context, e.g. the finding of sp. zn. III. ÚS 1275 / 10 of 22.12.2010, as amended by the Amending Resolution of 29.3.2011 (N 253 / 59 of the SbNU 581); Findings sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 29 / 09 of 3.11.2009 (N 233 / 55 SbNU 197; 387 / 2009 Coll.), paragraph 100).
69. In the procedure for checking standards - whether abstract or specific - it is the subject of the procedure for assessing the constitutionality of the contested legislation or its provisions. The identity (unity) of the case within the meaning of the obstacle to the case judged is given, on the one hand, by the identity of the contested provision, and, on the other hand, by the identity of the alleged and examined reasons for the unconstitutionality of the provision [finding sp. zn. These conditions are cumulative. The identity of the matter is given only if both of them are fulfilled. In other words, the obstacle to the case judged must be defined not only by the conformity of the contested legal provisions, but also by the reference criteria of constitutionality, which the Constitutional Court had previously dealt with in the context of the review of constitutionality [finding sp. zn. In: BOBEK, M., KÜHN, Z. et al. 3. Prague: Auditorium, 2024, p. 448).
70. This optics must also be viewed on the alleged identity of the sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 53 / 10. The subject of the abstract check of constitutionality was at that time different provisions of a different law whose scope and content are not identical to the provisions currently contested by the law (Article II of Act No. 348 / 2010 Coll., while Article XXII of Act No. 349 / 2023 Coll. and Section 10 (2) of the Act on Construction Savings was challenged). Nor does this change the fact that the transitional provisions of the amendment laws have been worded in almost the same way - as in their wording. This may be of relevance only in the context of a substantive assessment of the constitutional conformity of the contested transitional provision, not in the context of an assessment of the admissibility of the proposal under Paragraph 35 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act. In the present case, therefore, there is no impediment to the judgment (rei iudicatae) and the conditions of refusal of the application for annulment of part of the law under Paragraph 35 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act are not fulfilled.
71. The Constitutional Court therefore found no reason to reject the application for failure to comply with procedural requirements.
Abandonment of oral proceedings
72. The Constitutional Court has concluded that there is no need for oral hearing in the case, as it would not provide any further clarification of the matter than the written observations made by the appellant, the party to the proceedings, the intervener and the parties concerned. In view of the wording of Article 44 of the Constitutional Court Act, as amended, the Constitutional Court decided without holding oral proceedings.
Assessment of the constitutional conformity of the legislative process
73. After the Constitutional Court found that the procedural conditions of the procedure were met and the proposal was admissible, it accepted a review of the contested provisions, in accordance with Article 68 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., first addressed the question of whether it had been adopted and issued in a constitutionally prescribed manner and within the limits of the constitutional provision.
74. Knowledge arising from the observations of the chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic is considered sufficient by the Constitutional Court to conclude that the contested provisions of the law were issued within the limits of the Constitution of the prescribed competence and adopted in a constitutional manner.
75. In its proposal to abolish part of the law, the appellant does not even question the constitutionality of the legislative process which led to the adoption of the contested provisions of the law. There are no arguments raised by the government in this area.
A substantive review of the constitutionality of the contested provisions of the law
76. The Constitutional Court has therefore undertaken a substantive review of the constitutionality of the contested provisions of the law. Each of them examined separately and in the light of all the relevant objections raised by the appellant in the context in question. First, he considered the constitutional conformity of § 10 (2) of the Act on Construction Savings, namely the change in the amount of State aid for construction savings itself. It subsequently assessed the constitutional conformity of the transitional provisions according to which the change in the amount of State aid will affect the futuro of all existing building savings contracts, regardless of the date on which they were concluded.
Nature and entitlement to State aid under the Building Savings Act - general principles
77. Before the Constitutional Court addresses the issue of the constitutional consistency of the contested provisions of the law itself, it considers it appropriate to define the nature of the entitlement to State aid as well as the manner and timing of its creation.
78. The claim of the civil savings participant is supported by the law, not by the building savings contract (the finding of Pl. ÚS 53 / 10, paragraph 150). The conditions for the establishment of this claim and the related claims of the participants against the building savings bank, through which the participants' entitlement to the State is exercised, shall be laid down by the Building Savings Act.
79. According to the Building Savings Act, the State grants State aid in the form of annual advances (Section 10 (1)), the amount of which is essentially derived from the amount actually saved in the relevant calendar year (Section 10 (2)). The first claim of the building savings participant shall be the entitlement to an annual advance of State aid on his account. The building savings bank applies a written request to the Ministry of Finance for payment of this advance collectively to participants after the end of the calendar year; it is then obliged to register the individual State aid advances in the participants' accounts (Section 11 (2)). The second claim is a claim for State aid. The latter is subject to the condition that, for a period of six years from the date of conclusion of the contract, the participant either did not pay the sum saved or obtained a loan during that period and used the funds for housing (§ 12 (2)).
80. Therefore, the Land Savings Act assumes that State aid is granted not as a whole for the entire length of the binding period (i.e. six years), but on an ongoing basis in the form of annual advances, the amount of which depends on the amount of the amount actually saved in a given calendar year. the maximum amount of State aid is then fixed in Article 10 (2). The concept of entitlement to State aid is therefore merely a reference to the totality of the individual State aid entitlements for each calendar year (point 152).
Assessment of constitutional conformity § 10 (2) of the Building Savings Act in "5"
Right of residence - general principles
81. In its proposal, the appellant objected to the inconstitutionality of Paragraph 10 (2) of the Building Savings Act in the number "5" because of a breach of the right to housing. It claimed that the right of residence was one of the constitutionally protected fundamental rights, despite the fact that it was not (explicitly) enshrined in the Charter. The existence of that right was based on Article 11 (1) of the Pact and Article 16 of the European Social Charter, as well as on the case-law of the Constitutional Court (FTC 3 / 2000) and the Supreme Court (FTC 22 Cdo 5159 / 2014). According to the appellant, the granting of State aid at a certain level was a key instrument for the exercise of the right of individuals to reside, and, as a result of the contested amendment of Section 10 (2) of the Act on Construction Savings, Act No 349 / 2023 Coll. lost this function.
82. However, the attention of the Constitutional Court has not been missed that the appellant seems to have left that objection in her reply. In response to the observations of the party and, in particular, the intervener, did not raise any counter-arguments in defence of its allegation of infringement of the right to reside. In addition, it stated that "[n] and the appellants stress that they do not argue at all in their proposal by intervening in social rights in the sense of how extensive the performance within their framework should be. The proposal is based strictly on arguments proving that the contested provisions fundamentally infringe the constitutionally guaranteed principles constituting a complex rule of law '(in particular the pacta sunt servanda principle; the consumer protection principle and the principle of trust in law). Having regard to the fact that (a) the appellant objected to the contested provision with the right of residence - in spite of its subsequent claims to the contrary - it has clearly raised it, (b) it has not expressly withdrawn it, and (c) at least the Government has made a large statement to it, the Constitutional Court concludes that it is obliged to deal with it.
(a) Existence and establishment of the right to live in constitutional order
83. The applicant rightly points out that the right of residence is not expressly enshrined in the Charter or the Constitution. The Constitutional Court therefore had to first consider whether and possibly how this right is enshrined in the constitutional order of the Czech Republic.
84. The case-law of the Constitutional Court on the right to reside since its inception referred in particular to its international legal dimension and anchoring (see in this context, for example, the finding of the Pol.
85. The basis of the international law on housing can be found in Article 25 (1) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10.12.1948 in Paris as UNSCR A / RES / 217 (III) [A]. That provision states that "[t] he is entitled to a standard of living which would be able to ensure his health and well-being and the health and well-being of his family, including in particular nutrition, clothing, apartment and medical care... '. Although it is not a legally binding document, but a" mere "UN General Assembly resolution, its exceptional historical importance as well as its importance for the formulation of fundamental rights in successive international treaties [cf. sp. zn. IV. ÚS 553 / 06 of 30.1.2007 (N 17 / 44 SbNU 217), part VI.b)].
86. In the finding of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 40 / 17 of 24.8.2021 (N 143 / 107 SbNU 187; 344 / 2021 Coll.), paragraph 60, the Constitutional Court then dealt with the establishment of the right of residence in the international treaties by which the Czech Republic is bound. In this context, he mentioned, inter alia:
(i) Article 11 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
(ii) Article 16 of the European Social Charter (State commitment to promote the economic, legal and social protection of family life, including the provision of housing for families);
(iii) Article 27 (3) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, published under No 104 / 1991 Coll. (a commitment by the State to take the necessary measures, in accordance with its conditions and within its limits, to provide assistance to parents and other childcare persons, including, where appropriate, housing security), or
(iv) Article 14 (2) (h) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, published under No 62 / 1987 Coll. (a commitment by the State to take all measures to eliminate discrimination against women in rural areas and to guarantee them the right to adequate living conditions, including in housing).
87. It is clear from the above list that the European Social Charter, the Convention on the Rights of the Child or the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women only affects the issues of housing security marginally and in relation to specific groups of individuals, the subject matter currently under consideration does not directly concern any of them. Moreover, the appellant does not even appeal to most of them. The Constitutional Court will therefore continue to address only the issue of the State's positive obligations in the area of housing law under Article 11 (1) of the Pact, which is considered to be the so-called international human rights treaty and, consequently, as part of constitutional order.
88. Article 11 (1) of the Pact provides that "[s] fathers, Contracting Parties to the Pact, recognise the right of each individual to an adequate standard of living for him and his family, including adequate nutrition, clothing, apartment, and continuous improvement of living conditions. The Contracting States shall take appropriate steps to ensure that this right is implemented, recognising the fundamental importance of international cooperation based on free consent to achieve this objective. 'In addition, this provision must be interpreted in the light of Article 2 (1) of the Pact, according to which the parties to the Pact undertake to" undertake, with maximum use of their resources... to take economic and technical steps to achieve the full implementation of the rights recognised in the Pact by all appropriate means, including the adoption of legislative measures' (Resolution sp. zn. II of the ÚS 102 / 2000 of 27.11.2001; Similarly, e.g. finding sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 3 / 2000).
89. This gives rise to a number of essential elements for the content and scope of the right of residence under Article 11 (1) of the Pact. Firstly, it already follows from the wording of that provision itself that it sets out "only 'the obligation for the State to take certain steps to ensure an adequate standard of living, including housing. It is therefore not a provision of an international agreement on human rights that can be used directly without having to be implemented by law, but rather a provision that implies a commitment by States as parties to the Pact to adopt a certain (legislative) act aimed at meeting the objectives defined there (e.g. KYSELA, J., KÜHN, Z. Application of international law after the adoption of the so-called Euronovela of the Constitution of the Czech Republic. Legal considerations, 2002, No 7, part V. 1, including the caselaw cited there). This is both relevant for assessing whether rights under Article 11 (1) The Covenant may be directly obtained by individuals in proceedings before the courts (i.e. if it is justifiable), in order to assess whether, on its basis, the law of the Constitutional Court can be established without further delay [the finding of Sp. (Pl. ÚS 22 / 17 of 26.1.2021 (N 16 / 104 CollU 135; 124 / 2021 Coll.), paragraph 96; by analogy, e.g. RYCHETSKÝ, P., LANGÁŠEK, T., HERC, T., MLSNA P. et al. Constitutional law on security of the Czech Republic. Comment. Praha: Wolters Kluwer, 2015, p. 109). Secondly, the extent of the State's obligations laid down there is conditional on the extent of the resources available to the State. Therefore, there is no single ideal of living standards (including housing) that the State would have to guarantee to individuals (HOHMANN, J. The Right to Housing: Law, Concepts, Posibilities. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015 / 2447 of 18 December 2015 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540 / 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain fruit and vegetables originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1). Indeed, the Constitutional Court has also noted in this context in the past that the content of this right is" changing according to historical, social and economic developments, both global and other country's. The adequate standard of living is therefore not an absolute category, but a relative category, for which certain minimum standards are certainly given in the current legislation... These facts are reflected by the above-cited provisions of the Pact, which set out generally defined objectives which the Contracting States should achieve... provided that their resources allow this.' In view of the above, the right to an adequate standard of living should be assessed in the light of the particular situation in relation to the economic possibilities of the State '(Resolution sp. zn. II. ÚS 102 / 2000). Thirdly, Article 2 (1) The Pact foresees only the progressive implementation of the rights enshrined there, thus their gradual implementation by the Contracting Parties (HOHMANN, J. The Right to Housing: Law, Concepts, Posibilities, p. 18). Fourthly, the provisions cited in the Pact give the authorities of the Contracting States considerable freedom to choose the means to achieve the objectives set. International commitments resulting from Article 11 (1) The Pact can therefore be implemented in a number of ways and ways, leaving the choice of the most appropriate of which to the various contracting States.
90. However, this does not mean that Article 11 (1) The Pact has no constitutional or content. The establishment of so-called international human rights treaties, which are not directly applicable, must be of interpretative importance as they constitute an international legal obligation within the meaning of Article 1 (2) of the Constitution, which the Czech Republic has voluntarily assumed and undertaken to comply with it in good faith (Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on Contract Law, published under No 15 / 1988 Coll.). The Constitutional Court therefore considers the obligations under Article 11 (1) of the Pact to be relevant for the interpretation and definition of the content of the fundamental rights of individuals arising from national sources of constitutional law.
91. In point 15 of the decision sp. zn. II. ÚS 2533 / 20, referred to by the Government, the Constitutional Court stated that the right of residence can be derived from Article 30 (2) of the Charter, according to which anyone in material need has the right to such assistance as is necessary to ensure basic living conditions. Similar conclusions were reached by the Constitutional Court in a number of other decisions [Resolution sp. zn. II. ÚS 2113 / 23 of 29.5.2024, paragraph 12; finding sp. zn. II. ÚS 2533 / 20 of 25.4.2023, paragraph 15; finding sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 40 / 17 of 24.8.2021 (N 143 / 107 CollU 187; 344 / 2021 Coll.), paragraph 60; resolution sp. zn. II. ÚS 102 / 2000]. The constitutional relevance of the right of residence was also noted by the Constitutional Court in the finding of the sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 3 / 2000, which dealt with the issue of regulated rent as a means of applying state housing policy.
92. However, as explained above, the rights and obligations resulting from Article 30 (2) The instruments must be interpreted in such a way that the international obligations of the Czech Republic arising from Article 11 (1) of the Pact are respected as far as possible.
93. The systematic classification of this right already indicates that it is a right belonging to economic, social and cultural rights. This is confirmed by the case-law of the Constitutional Court [see, for example, Resolution sp. zn. II. The same conclusion is also reached by specialist literature (e.g. EIDE, A. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as Human Rights. In: CLAUDE, R. P., WESTON, B. H. Human Rights in the World Community: Issues and Action. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006, p. 173). This does not change the fact that certain aspects and issues relating to the right of residence may also be protected within the framework of other fundamental rights, if their nature [of the rights falling within Article 8 of the Convention, see e.g. the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the "ECHR ') in the case of Fadeyeva against Russia of 30.11.2004, No 55723 / 00, § 120 to 122; see, for example, the judgment of the ECHR in the case of Teterina against Russia of 30.6.2005, § 45 to 52]. Indeed, this is not exceptional even for other economic, social and cultural rights protected by the Charter.
(b) General considerations for assessing the constitutional conformity of interventions in economic, social and cultural rights
94. Article 41 (1) of the Charter, which provides that "[p] rases referred to in Articles 26, 27 (4), 28 to 31, 32 (1) and (3), 33 and 35 of the Charter may be invoked only within the limits of the laws transposing those provisions, should be regarded as a starting point in the review of the constitutional conformity of interventions in economic, social and cultural rights."
95. The Constitutional Court subsequently stated in its caselaw that "constitutionally anchored social rights are not directly applicable to the same extent as fundamental human or political rights in the light of the wording of Article 41 (1) of the Charter. Article 41 (1) of the Charter... expresses the view of the legislator that the regulation of social rights is a legitimate subject of political action (i.e. it is primarily in the hands of the legislator) and is only secondary to and to a limited extent can be regarded as a question of judicial law ', paragraph 45 and the caselaw cited therein.
96. Consequently, the Constitutional Court noted that Article 41 (1) of the Charter and the very nature of the economic, social and cultural rights exclude that the methodology of their review is identical to the methodology used in relation to the fundamental rights of the first generation, contained in particular in the title of the second Charter [the find sp. zn. Having regard to Article 4 (4), However, the Constitutional Court also noted that the legislature's discretion is not - and from a constitutional point of view cannot be entirely unlimited - in the field of the regulation of economic, social and cultural rights and can be subject to review by the Constitutional Court (point 47 of the Pol.
97. On the basis of these grounds, the Constitutional Court formulated the so-called rationality test (see, for example, the sp. zn. This test reflects both the need to respect the legislator's relatively large discretion and the need to exclude its possible excesses and consists of four steps:
(i) the definition of the meaning and substance of social law, namely its essential content;
(ii) an assessment of whether the law does not affect the very existence of social law or the actual realisation of its essential content;
(iii) an assessment of whether the legal regulation pursues a legitimate objective, namely whether it is an arbitrary substantial reduction in the overall fundamental rights standard;
(iv) considering whether the legislation used to achieve it is reasonable (rational), although not necessarily the best, most appropriate, most effective or wisest.
98. It is only when it is established that the law is in its substance that affects the essential content (core) of the fundamental law itself that a proportionality test should come to light, inter alia, to assess whether intervention in the essential content of the law is justified by the absolute exceptional nature of the current situation which would justify such action (point (b) of paragraph 104).
Assessment of constitutional conformity § 10 (2) of the Building Savings Act in the number "5" with right to reside
99. Constitutional conformities § 10 (2) of the Act on Construction Savings in the number "5" with the right to reside pursuant to Article 30 (2) The instruments shall be assessed using a rationality test.
100. The first step in the rationality test, as indicated above, is to define the essential content of the right to housing under Article 30 (2) of the Charter. The Constitutional Court has in the past stated that human dignity is of fundamental interpretation for the establishment of a minimum standard of social rights under Article 1 of the Charter. With reference to professional literature, he concluded that for social rights human dignity is an unparalleled limit, which ensures their minimum limit or minimum normative content [finding sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 55 / 13 of 12 May 2015 (N 93 / 77 CollU 339; 170 / 2015 Coll.), point 47, in which reference is made to the WAGNER, E., ŠIMÍČEK, V., LANGUŠEK, T., POSPISHIL, I. and kol. Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Comment. Praha: Wolters Kluwer, 2012, p. 17]. By this optics, the Constitutional Court considers as essential the content of the right to housing as provided for in Article 30 (2) of the Charter the right of persons who, due to a lack of resources, are in material need to ensure a fundamental dignity in housing. However, in view of the nature of this law and its definition in international and national law, the legislator has considerable discretion in choosing the means to ensure its minimum content (e.g. in kind, social benefits).
101. The second step of the rationality test is to assess whether the contested legislation does not interfere with the very essential content of the right to housing. In this context, the Constitutional Court notes that the contested section of Paragraph 10 (2) of the Building Savings Act does not only interfere with the core of the right to housing but is located on its very edge (periphery).
102. It follows from the explanatory memorandum to the Building Savings Act that the legislator considered that "[s] melting savings is a highly effective way of addressing citizens' housing needs. It is based on its own initiative of participants in building savings. The state should support this initiative. It corresponds to a new concept of a state housing policy, which is based on strengthening the responsibility of citizens, leaving the state's care system for housing needs... Construction saving is a specific form of special-purpose saving to contribute to the solution of the participants' housing needs."
103. In the very text of the law, this link of building savings to the fulfilment of the housing needs of individuals is expressed in particular in the first sentence of Paragraph 5 (3) of the Act, according to which "[u] faith from building savings can be provided and only used by the participant to finance housing needs." What can be considered as residential needs is subsequently defined in Section 6. The construction savings themselves are considered a necessary condition for the participant's access to the loan from the building savings (Section 5 (4)).
104. The legislators do not derive from constitutional order or international human rights treaties a positive commitment to establish a system of building savings in the legal order, let alone an obligation to anchor it in a certain form or to support it in a certain way. However, it cannot be overlooked that the legislator anchored the system of building savings and saw it as one of the tools for dealing with individual housing needs, especially in the context of transformation from the socialist structure and housing care system to market economy conditions.
105. There is therefore a certain link between the building savings system and the right to housing. However, this link is relatively free, particularly in relation to the so-called savings - unlike the credit - part of the building savings system, including the contested part of § 10 (2) of the Building Savings Act. In this context, the Constitutional Court points out that, contrary to the loan from the building savings, the "mere" savings law on the building savings does not anchor the condition of using the saved funds only to finance the housing needs of the participants. Such funds, including State aid under Paragraph 10 (2), may be used by participants in any manner and for any purpose, provided that the conditions for granting it are met. Although some of the participants in the building savings will undoubtedly use them to meet their housing needs, many of them will only use this financial product as a officially supported and "subsidised" form of savings.
106. In view of this specificity, the Constitutional Court notes that the issue of building savings and, in particular, the issue of State aid for building savings pursuant to Section 10 (2) of the Building Savings Act, concerns housing rights only marginally. By reducing the amount of State aid from 10% to 5% of the saved amount in the relevant calendar year, but not more than CZK 20 000, as a result of the amendment of the Act on Construction Savings Act No. 349 / 2023 Coll., there was definitely no interference with the essential content (core) of the right to housing.
107. The third step in the rationality test is to assess whether the contested legislation pursued a legitimate objective. In this context, the Government pointed to the need to reduce the deficit of the state budget and stabilise public finances, as well as the fact that Amendment Act No 349 / 2023 Coll. dealt with the issue of consolidating public budgets comprehensively, not only in relation to building savings. Moreover, these efforts to restore public finances were, according to the Government, part of a lengthy process. In general, this objective was addressed by the Constitutional Court as legitimate, even in the context of the current economic situation - the details can be referred to the finding of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 30 / 23, paragraphs 173 and 174. The Constitutional Court only briefly adds that the question of what the State's debt ratio or how its expenditure is to be financed is fully in the hands of the legislator, not the power of the court.
108. The fourth and final step of the rationality test is to assess whether the method used to achieve the legitimate objective set is reasonable (rational), though not necessarily the best, best, most effective or wisest.
109. Reducing the amount of state aid for building savings from 10% to 5% of the saved amount in the relevant calendar year, but not exceeding CZK 20 000, is generally a means of achieving the stated goal. The Constitutional Court accepts that this change in legislation may have a positive impact on the State's economy, including the amount of the State budget deficit.
110. In this context, the Constitutional Court did not even overlook the fact that the Government, in its observations, identified several different measures that it advocates (including through the enforcement of relevant laws or the reallocation of public funds) in the area of the security and promotion of the housing needs of individuals. In particular, the Government refers to (i) the enforcement of the adoption of a law on the provision of certain housing promotion measures (Housing Promotion Act), which, if adopted by the legislator, could provide the vulnerable groups with the necessary support for housing; (ii) setting up a programme of preferential interest rates for the construction of affordable rental housing; (iii) the creation of a programme of preferential interest rates combined with a subsidy for the revitalisation of older family homes. In view of the freedom enjoyed by the State or the legislature in the choice of means to enforce the right to housing, as well as the fact that, at least on the part of the Government, there has been a change in priorities in the area of fulfilling the right to housing rather than in an attempt to deny it, the Constitutional Court considers that the contested provision of the law can be considered compatible with the requirement of rationality.
111. For the reasons set out above, the Constitutional Court did not find any contradiction in Article 10 (2) of the Building Savings Act in the number "5 'with the right to reside under Article 30 (2) of the Charter, as interpreted in the light of Article 11 (1) of the Pact. There are therefore no grounds for its annulment.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No 132 / 2025 Coll., sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 15 / 24 on the application for annulment of § 10 paragraph 2 in the number "5" of Act No. 96 / 1993 Coll., on Construction Savings and State Support of Construction Savings, as amended by Act No. 349 / 2023 Coll., and Article XXII of Act No. 349 / 2023 Coll., amending certain laws in connection with the consolidation of public budgets |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | - |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 13.05.2025 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0