The Constitutional Court found No 153 / 1998 Coll.

On the day of the publication of this finding in the Collection of Laws, part of the provision of § 13 (3) of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., on out-of-court rehabilitation, in the words "from the effective date of the Act."

First, the Supreme Court pointed out that the applicant, permanently residing in Switzerland, who, in the action, disputed with the defendant that his applications for financial compensation had been filed late (15 November 1994), since the finding of the Constitutional Court published under No 164 / 1994 Coll. was without prejudice to the provisions of § 13 (3) of Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. He argued that a restrictive interpretation of this finding would again lead to discrimination against persons living abroad.

The Supreme Court also stated that the judgment of the Municipal Court in Prague of 29 March 1996 No 18 Co 33 / 96-23 confirmed the judgment of the District Court for Prague 1 of 6 October 1995 No 15 C 42 / 95-11, which dismissed the action for payment of CZK 180 000 in full. The General Courts concluded that the claimant is a person entitled under the provisions of § 19 (1) of Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. and also fulfils the conditions for granting a flat-rate compensation for the penalty imposed for the forfeiture of property of which there was no real estate, pursuant to § 13 (3) of the Act. However, the applicant's claims for financial compensation of 10 October and 15 November 1994 were said to have been delayed. The time limit laid down in Paragraph 13 (3) of the Act has already expired at the time of the submission of the applications and the defendant has made an explicit call to that effect. "For the question of time limits" in order to claim claims pursuant to § 13 (2) of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., in particular in relation to the finding of the Constitutional Court No. 164 / 1994 Coll., the Court of Appeal accepted the appeal made by the Supreme Court.

In its proposal, the Supreme Court referred to the existing wording of Paragraph 13 (3) of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., according to which "a written request for financial compensation must be lodged with the competent central authority of the state administration of the Republic no later than one year after the date of application of that law or within one year of the date on which the judgment rejecting the application for the issue of the case was found to have been given legal authority '. It is alleged that the application of the first of those time limits presupposes a situation in which there is no doubt between the parties at issue that there is no possibility of issuing the case and that there is no reason to call for an action for extradition first. The second time limit attaches to those who have given priority to the requirement to issue a case and whose application has been rejected not on grounds relating to the failure to meet the time limit forfeited or the failure to comply with the criteria defining them as beneficiaries. The finding of the Constitutional Court No. 164 / 1994 Coll. has abolished the condition of permanent residence in the Czech Republic enshrined in § 3 of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll. determining also the concept of authorised person under § 19 (1) of the Act. However, since the abolition of the unconstitutional permanent residence conditions in the Czech Republic took place only on 1 November 1994, persons who did not comply with this condition before that date were prevented from claiming their claims within a period of time, the beginning of which in Paragraph 13 (3) of the Act depends on the" effectiveness of the law. "This provision remained unaffected by the finding in question, so that the beneficiaries of the one-year period could not accede after 1 November 1994. The Supreme Court therefore takes the view that, where there is no possibility of considering the issue of a case, it is not possible to" fairly demand "the beneficiaries of the type described" that the failure of the first of those time limits in Paragraph 13 (3) of the Law - which has resulted in their unconstitutional exclusion from the scope of the Qualifying Persons - should not be replaced after 1 November 1994 by the evocation of a fictional dispute concerning the issue of the case, simply because the judgment of refusal allows them to base the requirement of financial compensation on the running of the second of the time limits envisaged by the provision cited.

For these reasons, the Supreme Court has proposed that part of the provisions of Paragraph 13 (3) of the Act be "annulled from the date of application of the Act 'as it considers that it is contrary to Article 1 of the Constitution and Articles 1, 3 (1) and 4 (2) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Charter). The Supreme Court referred to the finding of plenary of the Constitutional Court of 13 December 1995, sp. zn. In the present case it is also possible to take over the arguments of the Constitutional Court used in the finding No 164 / 1994 Coll., because the period laid down in Article 13 (3) of Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. differs from the nature of the time limits set out in paragraphs 5 (2) and 5 (4) of the Law only because there is no indication of its precarious nature, but the defendant can successfully object to the limitation of entitlement in the situations described.

By order of the Constitutional Court of 6 October 1997 sp. zn.

On that proposal The Supreme Court was expressed by a party to the proceedings - Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and by an intervener - District Court for Prague 2, whose procedural position is based on the provisions of § 35 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll. According to the provisions of § 48 (2) and § 49 (1) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., the Constitutional Court also requested observations from the Ministry of Finance.

The Chamber of Deputies stated in its observations that the proposal of the Supreme Court was well founded. Although Act No. 116 / 1994 Coll., amending and supplementing Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., came into force on 1 July 1994, the Act did not in any way address the deadline laid down in § 13 (3), so that the persons entitled under § 3 (1) and (4) of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll. did not have the opportunity to submit an application pursuant to § 13 (2) of that Act. The Chamber of Deputies added that Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll. was approved by the necessary majority of Members of the Federal Assembly of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, signed by the relevant constitutional officials and duly declared. At the time of the adoption of this law, the legislature acted in the belief that the adopted law was constitutionally conformal and also consistent with international practice. It is therefore up to the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of this law and to give its decision.

The District Court for Prague 2, as an intervener, identified the application for the annulment of part of the provision of Section 13 (3) of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll. as an intervener.

In his observations, the Minister of Finance stated that the finding of the Constitutional Court No 164 / 1994 Coll. was without prejudice to the provisions of Paragraph 13 (3) of Act No 87 / 1991 Coll. 'as a result of the obvious failure - omission in the parliamentary proposal'. The finding in question therefore does not allow the newly authorised persons to exercise their right to financial compensation in a timely and successful manner in the current version of Paragraph 13 (3), since the deadline had expired when the restitution law did not grant citizens the status of beneficiaries without permanent residence in the Czech Republic. The second of the two time limits (i.e. "within one year 'from the date on which the judgment rejecting the application for a case was found to have been given) is only applicable to real estate compensation, since in the case of compensation for forfeited movable goods in a lump sum of CZK 60 000, it is not decisive whether the cases were partially or even completely issued or not. The Ministry of Finance was therefore unable to comply with requests made outside the statutory deadline, and for the same reason the following legal actions were rejected.

The Minister of Finance considers the proposal of the Supreme Court - having regard to the quoted finding of the Constitutional Court, which concerned the deletion of parts of the provisions of § 5 (4) of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll. - to be justified. However, it recommends in the statement of reasons for the finding that, following the annulment of the relevant provision of Law No 87 / 1991 Coll., the one-year period in question begins to run on the date of enforceability of the finding and that this finding cannot be applied retroactively.

Already in the reasons for finding No 164 / 1994 Coll. The Constitutional Court stated that the condition of permanent residence, originally enshrined in the provisions of § 3 paragraphs 1 and 4 of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., created an inequality between beneficiaries and was therefore abolished. However, since the natural persons who are citizens of the Czech Republic and do not reside on its territory could not successfully exercise their rights, since the expiry of the legal period expired, the Constitutional Court also annulled part of the provisions of § 5 paragraphs 2 and 4 of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., namely the words "from the effective date of the Act," since it was only in this way allowed citizens whose claim had only been established by the Constitutional Court to apply it in time. At the same time, the Constitutional Court stated that the period under the provisions of § 5 (2) and (4) of Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. starts to run on the date of the enforceability of the finding of the Constitutional Court, i.e. 1 November 1994. However, this newly opened period concerned only persons who had become eligible, i.e. who had not yet fulfilled the condition of permanent residence in the territory of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (Czech Republic), who had already cancelled the finding. However, the running of the new deadline from the date of enforcement of the finding did not concern persons who had already been authorised before the date of the finding, since the conditions of permanent residence in the territory of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (the Czech Republic) met and only did not apply their claim in time.

Also in the case under examination - which corresponds essentially to the finding of the Constitutional Court - the Constitutional Court found that the proposal to abolish the words "from the date of application of the Act 'in Paragraph 13 (3) of Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. is justified, since the current wording of the provision cited - due to the expiry of the statutory one-year period - excludes persons who are resident outside the Czech Republic from claiming financial compensation. The Supreme Court rightly concluded that the provision cited remained unaffected by the finding of the Constitutional Court No 164 / 1994 Coll. so that the legal period could not be used by those beneficiaries even after 1 November 1994, when that finding became enforceable. These persons were therefore effectively excluded from the scope of the beneficiaries who could claim financial compensation and were therefore - compared with other beneficiaries - unconstitutionally disadvantaged and found themselves in an unequal legal position. The Constitutional Court also agrees with the view of the Supreme Court that, in cases where the issue of a case cannot be considered, it is not fair to require those authorised persons to replace the failure of the first of those time limits under the provisions of § 13 (3) of Act No 87 / 1991 Coll., which resulted in their unconstitutional exclusion from the scope of the Qualifying Persons, simply because the negative judgment allows them to rely on the second of the time limits set out in the provision cited.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court - in accordance with the proposal of the Supreme Court - concluded that the provisions of Article 13 (3) of Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. in the words "from the date of application of that law 'are contrary to Articles 1, 3 (1), 4 (2) and 4 (3) of the Charter.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court upheld the proposal by the Supreme Court for the annulment of the words "from the date of application of this Act 'in Paragraph 13 (3) of Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. and annulled the cited part of that provision on the date of the publication of this finding in the Collection of Laws. The Constitutional Court has not concluded that its enforceability should be postponed until a later date, as it is an exceptional procedure for the use of which there is no reason in the present case.

The Constitutional Court adds - as in the finding of 12 July 1994 sp. zn.

For the sake of completeness, the Constitutional Court also points out the provisions of Section 71 (2) of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll., under which "other final decisions issued under a regulation which has been annulled remain unaffected; however, the rights and obligations under such decisions cannot be exercised '. These are decisions that have been taken outside the area of criminal proceedings.

The right to give a different opinion in the Protocol on the hearing and to attach it to the decision, stating its name under Section 14 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, was exercised by Judge JUDr. Pavel Varvařovský.