The Constitutional Court found No. 146 / 2014 Coll.
The Constitutional Court's finding of 13 May 2014, sp. zn.
Valid
146
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
On 13 May 2014, the Constitutional Court decided, under point Pl.
as follows:
I. The application for annulment of the provisions of § 250a of Act No. 99 / 1963 Coll., Civil Code, as amended by Act No. 151 / 2002 Coll., is rejected.
II. A party to the proceedings pursuant to § 250a (1) of Act No. 99 / 1963 Coll., Civil Code, as amended by Act No. 151 / 2002 Coll., is also a State (Czech Republic) where the administrative proceedings were the result of a dispute arising from private law relations in which the administrative body was assessed as entitled to compensation for immovable property left in 1945 by citizens of the Czech Republic in Podkarpatské Rusi.
Reasons
1. On 14 December 2011, the Constitutional Court received the application of the District Court for Prague 3, for which the President of the Chamber, Dr David Práčil, (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant '), to abolish the provisions of Paragraph 250a (1) and (2) of Act No. 99 / 1963 Coll., Civil Code, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as" the contested provision').
2. The applicant submitted this proposal after having concluded, in the context of its decision-making activities (Case No 16 C 96 / 2011), in accordance with Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic ("the Constitution ') that the contested provision is contrary to the constitutional order.
Proceedings before administrative authorities and general courts
3. By an action in which the Czech Republic - Ministry of Finance has been designated as the party complained against, the claimants (five natural persons) seek to obtain compensation for immovable property left by their legal predecessor in Zakarpatské Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as "Podkarpatská Rus"), with the fact that the Ministry of Finance did not grant the required compensation by decision No 44 / 10366 / 2008-908. On 30 April 2009, the Minister of Finance decided on the decomposition against this Decision by confirming the contested decision. The legislation applied was Act No. 42 / 1958 Coll., on the modification of certain claims and obligations related to the unification of Zakarpatské Ukraine with the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine, and the implementing provisions issued for that Act.
4. The appellant was referred by the District Court for Prague 1, to which the action was originally served and which expressed its local incompetence. According to the District Court for Prague 1, the applicants were the only parties to the proceedings before the administrative authorities. It was not, in the view of the Court, that the procedure was a contractual procedure, but a procedure before the administrative authority for another legal issue arising from civil relations within the meaning of the provisions of Section 244 (1) of Act No. 99 / 1963 Coll., the Civil Code, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "o.s. '). In a situation where a decision given in such proceedings becomes final, the same matter may be dealt with on the application in civil proceedings under Part Five, under Section 250a (1) (c) of the Rules of Procedure, by virtue of Article 250a (1) (c) of the Rules of Procedure, by the applicants and those who were parties to the proceedings before the administrative authority, which, in the sense of the second definition of the parties under (now repealed) Section 94 (2) (c) of the Rules of Procedure, are only those which the law refers to as participants. Therefore, neither the Czech Republic nor the administrative body which issued the decision can be the participants, in the view of the District Court for Prague 1. In a situation where no party to the proceedings before an administrative authority should have been required to comply, the provisions of Paragraph 250 (1) (a) and (c) of the Rules of Procedure cannot be applied to the determination of local jurisdiction, but the provisions of Section 250 (1) (b) of the Rules of Procedure, according to which the general court of the party at whose request the proceedings before the administrative authority have been initiated is the competent authority. Under Paragraph 11 (2) CS, where proceedings have been initiated on application by several parties and the local jurisdiction of several courts is given, the proceedings may be held with any of them. Since neither of the applicants has a residence in the district of the District Court for Prague 1, the Court of First Instance, by order No 21 C 16 / 2009-62 of 21 September 2010, declared its local jurisdiction and referred the case to the District Court for Prague 3, as it is the general court of the first applicant. This resolution was subsequently confirmed by the Municipal Court in Prague as a court of appeal.
5. After the case had been referred to him, the appellant dealt with the heading of the parties, concluding that the provision of § 250a o. s., which should be applied, was contrary to the constitutional order. The appellant therefore submitted the present application for annulment of the provision in question within the meaning of Article 64 (3) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the Law on the Constitutional Court) and suspended the proceedings for the action.
Recital of the proposal
6. The contention of the contested provision with the constitutional order is seen by the appellant in that it does not allow the defendant to take part in the legal proceedings, which makes it impossible for him, like the claimants, to claim his rights effectively. The State represented by the Ministry of Finance should be required to act in this case, which, however, did not act as a party to the proceedings but as a determining administrative body. According to the appellant, the contested provision corresponds to the second definition of participation, according to which the appellant (applicant) and the person to whom the law expressly designates a party are parties. As the appellant points out, the administrative body which issued the decision in private law cannot be a party to the proceedings under Part Five of the Civil Code, since the law does not explicitly refer to it as a party. Nor can that authority, out of the logic of the case, be a party to the administrative procedure before it. In the present case, neither the Ministry of Finance nor the Czech Republic can act as parties in the proceedings before the appellant. Since the only parties to the administrative proceedings were the applicants, there is a lack of a body in the legal proceedings which could be procedural correct on the part of the defendant and thus defend the interests of the State in the present case.
7. The application of the contested provision in the circumstances "precludes the possibility of a fair trial in a case relating to the fundamental right of judicial and other protection, that is to say, a right guaranteed in particular by Article 36 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, both to applicants who do not have against whom a decision concerning the action brought by them or to a State which is not entitled to appear as a party to the proceedings and to defend itself in a qualified manner '.
8. According to the appellant, when applying the contested provision in the proceedings, the person whose rights and obligations are to be dealt with would not be present. If the court intends to comply with the action, then it should impose an obligation on the State to pay the cash. According to the current concept, however, he would not have served his sentence to anyone, the State would have been denied the right to have it examined before a second degree court and the applicants would not have been able to enforce the decision, as they would not have had a qualified enforcement title against the Czech Republic.
9. The appellant therefore submits that the contested provision is also contrary to Article 38 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Charter '), since the use of the term" his case' therein must be interpreted in such a way that the Charter requires everyone whose rights and obligations are to be dealt with in court to be able to take part in the proceedings and to comment on all the evidence carried out. According to the appellant, the contested provision is also contrary to Article 14 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which implies that everyone has the same right to be heard fairly and publicly by an impartial and independent court which decides on its rights and obligations. A similar right should also result from Article 6 (1) of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. According to the appellant, this right is denied not only to the State, but also to the plaintiffs, who are in fact unable to claim their claims against the alleged debtor.
10. Finally, the appellant considers that the wording of the law is so clear that it does not allow a constitutional conformal interpretation through which the parties could be extended.
11. For these reasons, the District Court for Prague 3 proposes to abolish the contested provision, whereby the legislature should replace the second definition of participation in § 250a ° C by a third definition whereby the parties to the proceedings are the appellant and all those whose rights and obligations are to be negotiated in the proceedings.
Observations of the parties
12. The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic ("the Chamber of Deputies"), in its observations on the proposal of 3 February 2014, signed by the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Jan Hamakk, stated that the draft law No 151 / 2002 Coll., amending certain laws in connection with the adoption of the Administrative Rules of Procedure, redrafting part of the fifth Civil Code (and incorporating also the contested provision in the Civil Code), was submitted by the Government to the Chamber of Deputies on 1 October 2001. The government bill was distributed to Members as House Press No. 1081 / 0. The Chamber of Deputies discussed the Government Bill No 151 / 2002 Coll. at first reading on 25 October 2001 and ordered it to be discussed by the Constitutional Legal Committee, which adopted amendments to the proposal, including the contested provisions of § 250a (1) and (2) o. s. s. In a detailed second reading debate, amendments were tabled which did not concern the contested provision. In the vote on the bill at the end of the third reading, the 159 Members present voted 149 in favour of the proposal and no one opposed the proposal. The bill was therefore adopted by the Chamber of Deputies and was referred to the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic on 25 February 2002 ("the Senate '). On 28 March 2002, the law was signed by the President of the Republic. In the Collection of Laws the law was declared on 17 April 2002.
13. In its observations on the proposal of 27 January 2014 signed by the President of the Senate by Milan Štěm, the Senate stated that Paragraph 250a (1) and (2) had been included in the Civil Code in the context of the adoption of a new regulation of the administrative justice system by Act No 151 / 2002 Coll. By this law, the entire part of the fifth o. s. s. Št., which since 1 January 2003 effectively regulates proceedings in cases which have been decided by another authority. Since that date of effectiveness, the Civil Code has been subject to several dozen amendments, but the provision of Paragraph 250a has not been affected, nor has the fundamental amendment adopted in connection with the recdification of private law (implemented by Act No. 293 / 2013 Coll., amending Act No. 99 / 1963 Coll., the Civil Code, as amended, and certain other laws). Nor has it been changed - except for minor exceptions - the whole part of the fifth o. s. s.
14. The bill was delivered to the Senate on 25 February 2002, and a constitutional legal committee (which was also a committee of guarantee) and a committee on territorial development, public administration and the environment were discussed by the legal outline. Both Senate committees have recommended approving the bill as referred to by the Chamber of Deputies. On 21 March 2002, the Senate expressed its willingness not to deal with the bill, with 38 in the decisive vote of the 43 senators present in favour and one against. According to its observations, the Senate acted within the limits of the Constitution and the constitutional procedure.
15. As regards the substantive assessment, the Minister of Justice, JUDr. Jaroslav Bureš, who stated, inter alia, that part of the Fifth Civil Code is intended to allow judicial review of final decisions by the administrative authorities on civil claims, which is designed to guarantee the constitutional protection of the rights and obligations of persons affected by those procedures. The rapporteur of the guarantee committee JUDr. Dagmar Lastovecká also commented on the proposal, which referred to two issues which had been discussed in the constitutional legal committee, none of which, however, concerned the contested provision § 250a (1) and (2) o. s. s. It is thus concluded that the Senate and its bodies which dealt with the proposal in question did not dispute the constitutional conformity of the provisions of § 250a (1) and (2) of the Civil Code.
16. The observations of the Government and the Ombudsman were not requested (cf. Communication from the Constitutional Court No. 72 / 12 of 18 December 2012, paragraph 3; published under No 469 / 2012 Coll.).
17. The statements of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate have been sent to the appellant in the light of a possible reply. On 6 February 2014, the applicant informed the Constitutional Court that it did not exercise the right of reply.
Abandonment of oral proceedings
18. The Constitutional Court did not expect further clarification of the case from the oral hearing, therefore it waived the first sentence of Paragraph 44 of the Constitutional Court Act.
Derogation of the contested provision
19. Paragraph 250a of Act No. 99 / 1963 Coll., Civil Code, as amended by Act No. 151 / 2002 Coll., reads:
Interested parties
(1) The parties to the proceedings are the applicants and those who were parties to the proceedings before the administrative authority.
(2) As soon as the court finds that a party to the proceedings is not a party to it pursuant to paragraph 1, it shall bring it into the proceedings by order. An appeal against this resolution is not admissible.
Assessment of the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court to discuss the application and the applicant's active legitimacy
20. In particular, the Constitutional Court had to consider whether the procedural conditions for hearing the application were fulfilled; In this context, he focused primarily on the question of whether the District Court for Prague 3 was actively legitimised for the application.
21. According to Article 95 (2) of the Constitution, if the court concludes that the law to be applied in the resolution of the case is contrary to constitutional order, it shall bring the matter before the Constitutional Court. The provisions of Paragraph 64 (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court further extend this provision, according to which the application for annulment of the law or its individual provisions is also entitled to be lodged by the Court in the context of its decision-making activities under Article 95 (2) of the Constitution.
22. The subject matter of a formal discussion of such a proposal shall be the fulfilment of Article 95 (2) The Constitution, in the sense that it must be a law to be applied in the resolution of the case, i.e. the law or its provision which is proposed for annulment, is to be applied directly by the appellant in the resolution of a particular dispute. It follows from the case law of the General Courts (see, for example, judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court No 4 / 2007- 68 of 14 June 2007, the conclusions of which were also confirmed by the Special Chamber for the Judgement of Certain Jurisdiction in Order No 6 / 2012- 9 of 27 September 2012) that the decision of the administrative authorities to grant compensation for assets left to Podkarpatské Rusi is a private law decision. Therefore, those who feel affected by this decision by their rights are entitled to seek protection of their rights through an action under Part Five of the Civil Code. In the context of this procedure, the courts are also required to deal with the heading of the parties to the proceedings, which is defined in Section 250a of the Rules of Procedure.
23. The Constitutional Court therefore finds the condition of direct application of the contested provision to be fulfilled. The appellant is actively legitimate in bringing an application for annulment of the contested provision.
Review of the procedure for the adoption of the legislative provision under review
24. The Constitutional Court, as required by § 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., subsequently examined whether the contested provision had been adopted within the limits of the Constitution established competence and in the constitutionally prescribed manner. It has been based on further cited shortwriting reports and on the statements of both chambers of Parliament.
25. From the shorthand report of the 46th session of the Chamber of Deputies held on 15 February 2002, the Constitutional Court found that Law No 151 / 2002 Coll. was adopted by the Chamber of Deputies at third reading in vote No 596, with 149 Members voting in favour of the proposal, no Member voting against it.
26. It follows from the short-term report from the 15th Senate meeting held on 21 March 2002 that the Senate expressed the will not to deal with draft Act No 151 / 2002 Coll.; in vote 95, 38 senators and 1 senator voted in favour of this move.
27. The Constitutional Court held that Act No 151 / 2002 Coll., of which the contested provision is part, was adopted and issued within the limits of the constitutional competence and the constitutional procedure.
Meritorious review of the proposal
28. After assessing the constitutionality of the procedure for the adoption of the contested law, the Constitutional Court focused on its substantive compliance with the constitutional order. The Constitutional Court first addressed the question whether the contested provision, as interpreted by the appellant, is contrary to the constitutional order of the Czech Republic. In the event of a positive reply, the Constitutional Court will also examine whether a constitutional conformal interpretation of the contested provision is considered or whether it is the only solution to its depreciation.
29. According to the appellant's interpretation, the contested provision does not allow the State to take part in the legal proceedings, since the State, although it is a body against which a claim is made by the applicant, was not a party to the proceedings before the administrative authority and, in the case of the determining administrative authority, could not be a party to the legal proceedings under Part Five.
30. According to Article 36 (2) The Charter may be applied to the court to examine the lawfulness of such a decision, unless otherwise provided for in the law, who claim to have been shortened on his rights by a decision of a public authority. A review of decisions concerning fundamental rights and freedoms shall not be excluded from the jurisdiction of the court.
31. Article 11 (4) The Charter is an expropriation or forced restriction of property rights possible in the public interest, by law and for compensation. If, therefore, the administrative authority has decided on the right of the claimants to compensation for the property left in Podkarpatské Rusi, which the claimants lost as a result of the Treaty between the Czechoslovak Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Zakarpatské Ukraine and the Protocol on this Treaty, published under No 186 / 1946 Coll., or under the Agreement between the Czechoslovak Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the final settlement of property and financial issues, linked to the unification of Zakarpatské Ukraine with the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, published by Decree of the Minister of Foreign Affairs No 1 / 1958 Coll., this Decision of 30 April 2009 in a certain scope, in the fundamental rights and freedoms under the Charter.
32. Protection by this decision of the rights in question is guaranteed by the rule of law through Part Five of the Civil Code. However, from the point of view of fundamental rights, it is not sufficient if the rule of law merely provides a theoretical guarantee of a law, but it is necessary for an individual to be able to actually grasp that right. Therefore, if, in the course of proceedings before an administrative authority, a decision were to be taken as to the applicant's entitlement to compensation for the property, but in subsequent proceedings, the body to which such compensation is to be granted could not be party to the proceedings, this would infringe Article 36 (2) of the Charter. The Court of First Instance could not comply with the applicants and grant them the compensation requested because it cannot impose obligations on a person who is not a party to the proceedings. Thus, the applicants would have had no real opportunity to obtain a refund.
33. The Constitutional Court therefore agrees with the appellant that the contested provision in the interpretation described above could lead to a breach of constitutionally guaranteed rights.
34. The Constitutional Court also examined whether the contested provision, or the provision related thereto, could be interpreted in such a way that the claimant, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 244 et seq.
35. It is clear that the contested provision may appear not in its entirety but only in specific cases where the rights and obligations of the State which acts in that administrative procedure are the subject of the previous administrative procedure. The Constitutional Court therefore focused precisely on these specific cases, concluding that the State's position in these administrative proceedings also allows its participation in subsequent proceedings under Part Five of the Civil Code, even if the legislation under appeal is maintained.
36. The claim against the State pursuant to Act No. 42 / 1958 Coll. (pursuant to § 1 (1) of this Act "the Czechoslovak State will grant... compensation...") corresponds by its private legal nature to many other claims for property refunds which are applied to the State under other legislation. The specificity of the claim under Act No. 42 / 1958 Coll. is that the State body (pursuant to § 3 of the Ministry of Finance) is entitled to decide on the dispute. However, this specificity does not change the fact that the State is at the same time an entity which, pursuant to Article 1 (1) of Law No 42 / 1958 Coll. may be obliged to satisfy the right of the appellants (the claimants) to compensate for the property (the State is therefore de facto an opponent). As opponents, he also has the right to be a party to the administrative proceedings in which the applicants claim compensation.
37. In this respect, in the absence of special rules governing participation in Act No. 42 / 1958 Coll. (and its reference in § 3 to the Administrative Order), it can be pointed out, in support of the provisions of § 141 (3) of the Administrative Regulation, which replaced the procedural regulation under which the administrative authority provided that the parties to proceedings in which disputes arising from civil relations are settled are the appellant and the defendant. The Constitutional Court points out at this point that, despite the opinion of the District Court for Prague 1, compensation proceedings for the assets left behind have features of the dispute decision, despite the State's specific position in the present proceedings. In fact, in Act No. 212 / 2009 Coll., which mitigates property injustices to the citizens of the Czech Republic for immovable property left in the territory of Podkarpatské Rusi in connection with its contractual transfer to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which replaces Act No. 42 / 1958 Coll., as of 1 October 2009, which is expressly enshrined in the State as a party to administrative proceedings (provision § 4 (2)), although this was only done by amendment of Act No. 121 / 2012 Coll. In the light of the complicated definition of the State's position in these proceedings, which, after all, led the appellant to submit the present proposal, in the view of the Constitutional Court, the explicit definition of the State as a party to the procedure under Law No 212 / 2009 Coll. cannot be understood as not being a party to the special regulation, but rather as confirmation of the logical conclusion resulting from the nature of the administrative procedure and from the provisions of Section 141 (3) of the Administrative Regulation.
38. The State therefore belongs to the status of a party under the provisions of § 250a o. s., which does not depend on its position as a determining administrative body, but rather on the status of a party to the administrative procedure in question. Moreover, a similar interpretation can be found in the caselaw of the general courts. The same conclusion has already been reached, for example, by the Supreme Court, which stated in Resolution No. 21 Cdo 1385 / 2011 of 9 August 2012 in relation to the procedure for the application of a staff member to satisfy the claims due under Act No. 118 / 2000 Coll., on the protection of employees in the insolvency of employers and on the amendment of certain laws, that not only the applicant, but also those who are obliged - whether they otherwise have the status of administrative body within the meaning of § 244 (1) CS - to satisfy his right.
39. For the reasons set out above, it can be concluded that, in cases where an administrative procedure against the State places a claim under private law, the organisational component which is to act as a State at the same time is a decisive administrative body, the State must be regarded as a party to the proceedings before the administrative authority for the purposes of the provisions of § 250a. The State is therefore also a party to the proceedings under Part Five of the Civil Code.
40. This interpretation is not only constitutional, but also corresponds to the will of the legislator, who clearly did not intend to restrict the claimant in his right to claim before the court his right to compensation for the property left in Podkarpatské Rusi or to restrict the State (acting as a private body) in his right to take part in the proceedings in which he decides on his rights and obligations. On the contrary, the legislature's intention was explicitly manifested by an amendment to Act No. 212 / 2009 Coll., which confirmed the right of the State to be a party to the proceedings for compensation of assets left behind in Podkarpatské Rusi. Despite the partial differences in the procedures under Law No 42 / 1958 Coll. and Law No 212 / 2009 Coll., it would not be justified to conclude that the legislator intended to define a completely different range of participants for these proceedings and subsequent proceedings.
41. The Obiter Dictum Constitutional Court adds that, by decision of the General Court on compensation for property left in Zakarpatské Ukraine, it had already been dealt with in the decision of the General Court on 26 June 2012 (N 125 / 65 of the SbNU 615), in which it considered that the State was a party to the proceedings before the General Courts, and therefore, in the proceedings for a constitutional complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 76 (2) of Act 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, it was a party to the case. The Constitutional Court also recalls the obligation of the general courts to take into account the provisions contained in Act No. 212 / 2009 Coll., in the intentions of the cited finding sp. zn. I. ÚS 2050 / 11.
Conclusion
42. For all the above reasons, the Constitutional Court rejected the application for annulment of the contested provision and added an interpretative statement ensuring that the heading of the parties is defined in a constitutional manner in accordance with Part Five of the Civil Code.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v. r.
In accordance with Article 14 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, the Judge Vladimir Sládeček and Radovan Suchanek took a separate opinion on the second sentence.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No. 146 / 2014 Coll., on the application for annulment of § 250a of Act No. 99 / 1963 Coll., Civil Code, as amended by Act No. 151 / 2002 Coll. |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | - |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 24.07.2014 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0