The Constitutional Court found No 16 / 2019 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 27 November 2018 sp. zn.
Valid
16
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
On 27 November 2018, the Constitutional Court decided under sp. zn.
as follows:
I. Paragraph 169r (1) (j) and § 172 (6) of Act No. 326 / 1999 Coll., on the residence of foreigners in the Czech Republic and on the amendment of certain laws, as amended by Act No. 222 / 2017 Coll., amending Act No. 326 / 1999 Coll., on the residence of foreigners in the Czech Republic and on the modification of certain laws, as amended, and other related laws, shall be deleted from the date of the publication of this Decision in the Collection of Laws.
II. Paragraph 46a (9) and Article 73 (8) of Act No. 325 / 1999 Coll., on asylum, as amended by Act No. 222 / 2017 Coll., amending Act No. 326 / 1999 Coll., on the residence of foreigners in the Czech Republic and amending certain laws, as amended, and other related laws, shall be deleted from the date of the publication of this finding in the Collection of Laws.
Reasons
Content of the proposal to repeal the provisions of the law
1. A group of 18 senators of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the "promoters") proposed to the Constitutional Court that in Act No. 326 / 1999 Coll., on the residence of foreigners in the Czech Republic and on the amendment of certain laws, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on the residence of foreigners") the provisions of § 169r (1) (j) and § 172 (6) should be repealed. The group of senators also proposed that the Constitutional Court repeal the provision of § 46a (9) with the provision of § 73 (8) of Act No. 325 / 1999 Coll., on Asylum, as amended ("the Act on Asylum '). The proposal was divided into two separate units according to the contested provisions: on the question of the constitutionality of the suspension of administrative proceedings in certain cases concerning residence permits in the Czech Republic [see Section 169r (1) (j) of the Act on the residence of foreigners] to foreigners who are family members of citizens of the Czech Republic, and on the question of the constitutionality of the limitation of judicial review in certain cases where the restriction of personal freedom has been terminated (the termination of detention of a person, the cessation of unauthorised entry into the Czech Republic from the reception centre at the international airport; see the other three provisions above).
2. The contested provision of § 169r (1) (j) of the Act on the residence of foreigners allows the termination of the residence permit procedure if an alien from a third country who is a family member of a citizen of the Czech Republic (also "foreign-family member of a citizen of the Czech Republic" or "applicant") has applied for a temporary residence permit or permanent residence permit, even though he was not authorised to reside in the Czech Republic at the time of the application. The procedure under this provision is terminated even if a foreign family member of a Czech citizen has applied for the above residence permits during the period of validity of the exit order. According to the same provision, those rules are not applicable when an application is made during the period of validity of an exit order issued after the expiry of the authorisation to reside on the basis of additional protection or in the event that the alien renounces asylum himself.
3. The appellants argue that this provision contains a legislative error. Paragraph 1 (169r) of the Act on the residence of foreigners contains a list of the reasons for the termination of the administrative procedure consisting of the conduct or conduct of an alien, the introductory wording of the first paragraph being the words "if an alien 'and, under certain letters, the full sentence of the reference pronoun" which' shall be followed; Under others, the verb continues directly. However, in the relevant standard sub (j), starting with the reference pronoun, the sentence is not terminated, which evokes double interpretation. Either the pronoun resides in the text, or there is no further condition in the unending sentence to stop the proceedings.
4. According to the applicants, the provision in question cannot be applied to a conflict with Union law. According to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union ("the Court ') relating to the right of free movement, it is true that the unlawful entry or residence itself does not constitute sufficient grounds to restrict the right of free movement of a member of the European Union's family. The described contradiction with Union law seems to be the reason why the contested provision applies only to foreigners - family members of citizens of the Czech Republic (see paragraph 2 above).
5. It follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice that the rights under Directive 2004 / 38 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612 / 68 and repealing Directives 64 / 221 / EEC, 68 / 360 / EEC, 72 / 194 / EEC, 73 / 148 / EEC, 75 / 34 / EEC, 75 / 35 / EEC, 90 / 364 / EEC, 90 / 365 / EEC and 93 / 96 / EEC (hereinafter "Directive 2004 / 38 ') also apply to a family member of a citizen of the European Union if he applies for a residence permit in that Member State of the European Union whose citizenship the citizen concerned has a European Union. This is also a situation in which a citizen of the European Union has exercised the right of free movement in other Member States and is returning to his home state with a stranger from a country outside the European Union who has in the meantime become his family member. Where a Member State of the European Union prohibits the acquisition of a residence permit for that alien, it thus, according to the case law of the Court of Justice, also deprives a citizen of the European Union of the possibility of actually taking advantage of a substantial part of its statutory rights.
6. Paragraph 169r (1) (j) of the Act on the residence of foreigners by making it impossible to legalize the residence of foreigners-family members of citizens of the Czech Republic unequal treatment between these foreigners and family members of citizens of other EU States in specified situations. It makes it impossible to issue a residence permit to a foreign-family member of a Czech citizen who resides in the Czech Republic even if he is not authorised to reside here or has an exit order. The exit order is not, according to the applicants, an administrative act that would establish an obligation for a stranger to travel from the Czech Republic. For example, according to the provisions of Section 67 of the Act on the Residence of Foreigners, an alien residing in the Czech Republic after an international protection procedure may apply for permanent residence. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the submission of applications for a residence permit with an exit order would generally be inadmissible.
7. The persons affected by the contested provision have two possibilities. Either he must leave the Czech Republic and apply as a family member of a European Union citizen for an entry visa under Regulation (EC) No 810 / 2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Community Code on visas (Visa Code). After obtaining this visa, they can travel to the Czech Republic on this visa and apply for a residence permit as a family link to a Czech citizen. The second option is not to travel and to apply for a visa to stay more than 90 days in order to suffer the stay provided for in Section 33 of the Foreign Act. When travelling, however, a foreign family member of a Czech citizen may face obstacles of a legal, health, financial or family nature. Nor can the evidentiary difficulties be omitted in the follow-up to the application for an entry visa. In relation to the latter possibility, the appellants state that, according to the current regulation of the Act on the residence of foreigners, only certain family members of the citizens of the Czech Republic could obtain a residence permit for the purpose of cohabitation with a citizen of the Czech Republic through the Institute of Consternation. In addition, the decision to grant a visa for the purpose of the stay is excluded from judicial control under the provisions of Section 171 (a) of the Foreign Code.
8. The applicants stress that, on the basis of an amendment by Mr Václav Kluček, on the basis of which the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Chamber of Deputies) has adopted the contested regulation, the contested regulation cannot be accepted in relation to the provisions of Paragraph 169r (1) (b). (j) the Act on the residence of foreigners to derive no legitimate objective to pursue. The appellants can imagine three possible legitimate objectives: (a) a penalty for foreigners for being in a situation affected by the contested provision (i.e. that they reside in the Czech Republic illegally or that the administrative authority has issued an exit order), (b) measures aimed at preventing violations of immigration rules, or (c) facilitating the procedure for residence permits for foreigners - family members of citizens of the Czech Republic. As regards the first possible objective, the appellants state that it is not necessary for the issuing of an exit order that an alien previously infringes any legal obligation. The third objective would clearly pass by: to assess whether a stranger meets the family member's definition and whether he also meets other statutory conditions for the issue of a residence permit, he cannot help in any way if, before submitting the relevant application, a stranger has to travel abroad and return to the Czech Republic and apply here. Therefore, the second possibility remains that the contested provision is a preventive measure. In addition, the applicants consider that no harm can be caused to the public interest from the application itself.
9. Another objection by the appellants argues that the intervention of the provision of Paragraph 169r (1) (j) of the Act on the residence of foreigners in the right to family life of the persons concerned is disproportionate. The applicants know that there is no constitutional guarantee of the right of a stranger to a residence permit in the Czech Republic. However, the contested provision interferes not only with the right of a stranger to protect his private and family life, but particularly with the right to protect the private and family life of Czech citizens who share a personal relationship with him. That right is based on the principle of citizenship and is part of the civil union.
10. The remaining provisions (see paragraph 1) affect administrative procedures and therefore judicial review of relevant restrictions on the personal freedom of foreigners. On the basis of that group of contested provisions, the judicial review of those restrictions on the personal freedom of foreigners shall cease as soon as those restrictions on their personal freedom have ceased.
11. In relation to these provisions, the appellants point out that there have already been serious doubts about their compliance with Union law in the application practice. The Supreme Administrative Court referred the question to the Court for a preliminary ruling and took the view that the provisions of Paragraph 46a (9) of the Asylum Act could not be applied in proceedings before the Regional Court in a situation where there had not yet been a substantive review of the legality of the security at any stage of the proceedings before administrative courts (see Resolution of 23.11.2017 No 10 of Azs 252 / 2017-43). According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the termination of an action would deprive a stranger of any judicial review of a decision restricting his personal freedom. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the contested provisions contravene Union law also because they impose a flat-rate obligation on it to stop proceedings in respect of the complaints in question.
12. The non-constitutionality of the provisions restricting judicial review of restrictions on personal freedom shall be gradually re-summarised by the appellants, inter alia, by restricting judicial review of certain decisions restricting personal freedom and by establishing an unjustified, disproportionate and unfavourable exception to the standard judicial review procedure for administrative decisions; further establish unequal treatment between persons deprived of liberty under the Act on the residence of foreigners or the Act on Asylum and persons deprived of liberty under other provisions of Czech law, indirect discrimination against the first group of persons on the basis of citizenship; without any substantive justification, deny secured aliens the right to compensation for damage caused by an unlawful decision; once again, without any substantive justification, deny certain persons the right to reimbursement of the costs of legal proceedings; they also constitute an intervention in the right of ownership, as some secured aliens must bear the costs of their residence in detention facilities without having the possibility of making unlawful the restriction of their personal freedom, and finally, the contested provisions create a disproportionate relationship between their purpose and the possible consequences of their application. In addition to these claims, the appellants have repeatedly returned, which was adequately taken into account by the Constitutional Court in the rest of the recap.
13. Prior to the adoption of the contested provisions, there was a possibility of the annulment of a decision restricting personal freedom even at a time when such a restriction on personal freedom was no longer in place. (In the case of review of other administrative decisions, they may be annulled even at a time when such decisions no longer have practical legal implications for the applicant.) This is not possible in the case of decisions affecting the contested provisions. The contested provisions lead to the complete exclusion of judicial review of a decision restricting personal freedom if that restriction expires before the administrative court takes a final decision on the action against such a decision. The right to judicial protection referred to in Article 36 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the "Charter ') shall guarantee the right of the person claiming to shorten his rights as a result of a decision by a public authority to give a substantive decision on the matter; This isn't just about the right to sue.
14. The contested provisions constitute a disadvantage to the standard regulation of administrative proceedings. The appellants draw attention to the institute of so-called satisfaction of the appellant in accordance with Article 62 of Act No. 150 / 2002 Coll., the Administrative Rules of the Court (hereinafter referred to as "p. '), with the view that the contested provisions have a broader impact than that of the Institute. It should be pointed out that the appellants have, in accordance with the administrative rules, the right to choose, if satisfied, whether to insist further on hearing the case or to have the procedure terminated. However, in the case of the contested provisions, they do not have that right.
15. According to Mr Kluček's amendment, the purpose of the contested provisions is also to remove the administrative judiciary. The actions brought by the contested provisions are intended to result in the release of a foreigner. The further conduct of the action is therefore unnecessary. However, this is only a part of the interests that applicants may have against decisions restricting their personal freedom. Another objective here is to reach a decision that finds restrictions on personal freedom illegal. Moreover, the contested provisions may not always be applied when the alien is released. The contested provisions also apply in the case of so-called overcollateralisation, that is to say, restrictions on the personal freedom of a stranger under another legal provision. However, there is no freedom in the event of overcompensation between the end of restrictions on personal freedom, for example under the Act on the residence of foreigners and the new restrictions on personal freedom, for example under the Act on asylum.
16. The contested provisions are wholly disproportionate to the purpose pursued. In practice, this purpose (termination of proceedings) may be directly fulfilled in the following ways: on the one hand, following the release of a stranger, either on the basis of the expiry of the period under the original decision on the restriction of liberty or on the basis of a new administrative act; further after successful implementation of the decision to leave the Czech territory; and finally after overcollateral. According to the provisions of § 172 (4) and (5) of the Aliens' Residence Act and § 46a (8) and § 73 (7) of the Asylum Act, the Regional Courts must decide on actions against decisions restricting the personal freedom of foreigners within short periods. The defendant's administrative authority must forward the file to the court within five days and the administrative (regional) court must decide within seven working days. An administrative action alone may be brought by an alien within 30 days of the date of service of the decision restricting his or her liberty. The release of a stranger to freedom before the ruling of the county court will therefore be an exception. The reasons for restricting the freedom of a stranger would have to fall out within days of the restriction of liberty or the administrative authority would have to set the length of the security of a stranger for a very short time.
17. According to the appellants, the contested provisions will therefore be applied incomparably more frequently in the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court. This court does not bind the strict time limits for the decision. The guarantee will be terminated even if the Regional Court rescues the decision to restrict liberty. Thus, it is practically impossible to lodge a complaint against the judgment of the Regional Court, which the administrative court will comply with and the administrative decision to restrict personal liberty. It can therefore be considered that the contested provisions will in particular significantly restrict the activities of the Supreme Administrative Court. The decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court are of a systemic nature. The details of his decision-making activities in the development of the administrative case following the judgment of the Regional Court under review go completely against the meaning of the law. Consequently, the contested provisions can practically remove only the Supreme Administrative Court at the price of a significant reduction in its unifying role and disadvantage to a part of the applicants.
18. According to the appellants, the contested provisions also provide for unequal treatment between those affected and other persons whose personal freedom has been restricted under other provisions of the rule of law. They deny the possibility of compensation for illegal restrictions on personal freedom. The creation of the right to compensation is subject to the provisions of § 8 of Act No. 82 / 1998 Coll., on liability for damage caused in the exercise of public authority by a decision or by an incorrect official procedure and amending the Act of the Czech National Council No. 358 / 1992 Coll., on notaries and their activities (notarial order), as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act on State Liability ') by abolishing or amending the decision which caused the damage. However, according to the contested provisions, a person limited to personal freedom will not be able to reach the annulment of the decision on his detention if, during administrative proceedings, the restriction on personal freedom ends, which will result in the termination of the judicial procedure.
19. The appellants add that, in the event of termination of administrative proceedings under the contested provisions and under the provisions of Paragraph 47 (c) (s) (CS), the claimant cannot obtain the right to pay the costs. This is without prejudice to the grounds for the action (see § 60 (3) of the EC Treaty). Thus, the contested procedural regulation does not allow the courts to grant reimbursement of the costs to the claimant who has legitimately opposed an unlawful decision, contrary to the case law of the Constitutional Court [see, for example, the finding of the Constitutional Court of 3.5.2006 sp. zn. I. ÚS 351 / 05 (N 94 / 41 SbNU 253)].
20. Finally, the appellants criticise the lack of rationality of the contested provision. If the Regional Administrative Court accepts the action of a foreigner against a decision to secure it, the release of a foreigner shall be followed. However, on the basis of the contested provisions, the defendant administrative authorities may no longer lodge a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court. There is therefore no control over the decision of the Regional Courts on the review of restrictions on personal freedom under the Law on the residence of foreigners and the Asylum Act if the Regional Court accepts the action. Thus, only the judicial or criminal law institutes remain in charge of any excesses.
Statement of participants, interveners and other persons on the content of the proposal
21. The Constitutional Court, pursuant to the provisions of Section 69 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, invited the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (Senate) as parties to the proceedings and the Government of the Czech Republic (Government) together with the Ombudsman as interveners to comment on the content of the proposal. The Constitutional Court asked for observations on the application under Section 48 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act, as well as the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Interior.
22. The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate have spoken on the proposal. Their observations are summarised below in Parts II (a) and II (b).
23. The Government adopted Resolution No 74 at its meeting of 31 January 2018, which decided not to exercise its right to intervene.
24. The Minister of Justice stated in his observations that the ministries in all their activities are governed not only by constitutional and other laws but also by resolutions of the Government. The Ministry must ensure that it does not conflict with the purpose of such a resolution or that the Government's resolution does not compete de facto. If the Government as a whole expressed its will not to intervene in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court and thus not to express its own procedural position, it also determined the position of the Ministry. The individual opinion of the Minister of Justice on the proposal is therefore consumed by the Government. The Minister of Justice therefore did not add any procedural proposal. The expression of the Minister of the Interior is subject to detailed recap below.
25. The Constitutional Court sent these observations to the appellants for a reply but they no longer completed their submissions; Moreover, given their extremely large and almost all aspects of the issue of the exhaustive text, this was not even necessary.
Observations of the Chamber of Deputies
26. The Chamber of Deputies described the course of the legislative process of adopting the contested regulation. The government bill was distributed to Members as Press No. 990 on 13 December 2016. The bill passed both a general and detailed debate at the second reading on 20 March 2017. In a detailed debate, two Members spoke with their amendments, of which Mr Václav Klučka, in his amendment, proposed to insert in the provisions of Paragraph 169r (1) of the Aliens' Residence Act the contested letter (j). In the next part of his amendment, the same Member proposed the insertion of the contested paragraph 6 in Section 172 of the Aliens' Residence Act, Section 9 in Section 46a of the Asylum Act and Section 8 in Section 73 of the Asylum Act. In the first part of the amendment, 104 Members voted out of 159 Members present, eight opposed the proposal. In the case of the second part, 98 Members voted in favour of the proposal and 26 Members opposed the proposal. 7 April 2017 The Chamber of Deputies approved the bill as amended. After the Senate's rejection of the bill, the Chamber of Deputies approved it by its vote on 27 June 2017, when of the 145 Members present, the law was adopted by a majority of 113 Members, 9 against.
Statement by the Senate
27. The Senate summarised the observations of some senators when discussing the bill at the 7th meeting held on 31 May 2017. In its resolution No 166 of the same day, the Senate decided to reject the bill. Of the 73 senators present, 42 were to reject the bill. 15 senators voted against.
Observations of the Ombudsman
28. The Ombudsman fully identified the application for the annulment of all the contested provisions. It questioned the constitutionality of the legislative process, as the amendment by Mr Kluček showed that it had been prepared by the Ministry of the Interior, thereby bypassing binding rules for the adoption of new legislation. It avoided the process of settling the comments of the State authorities concerned and other points of comment. The amendments tabled by the amendment would probably not have stood up in due process.
29. The contested provision of § 169r (1) (j) of the Act on the residence of foreigners has become the only provision of this law which distinguishes between family members of migrant citizens (European Union) and non-migrant citizens of the Czech Republic. Foreign-family members of citizens of the Czech Republic may invoke the direct effect of Union law if a citizen of the Czech Republic returns to his home state with this person after developing or strengthening family life with him during his stay in another Member State. According to the case law of the Court of Justice, the illegal entry or residence of a member of the family of a European Union citizen is not in itself a reason to reject an application for a temporary residence permit or to stop the procedure for such an application. According to the same case-law, this does not prevent a Member State of the European Union from applying other sanctions against such a family member which do not undermine freedom of movement and residence such as a fine. However, their proportionality is a prerequisite. The contested provision, which makes it impossible for foreigners and family members of citizens of the Czech Republic to apply for a residence permit, thus clearly contradicts Union law. At the same time, the right to the protection of private and family life enshrined in Article 10 (2) of the Charter and Article 8 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention ') is violated.
30. The contested provisions relating to the termination of the judicial review of the restrictions on personal freedom of the Ombudsman stated that the Supreme Administrative Court, in its case-law, also regards the termination of the collateral as the so-called overcollateral. The contested legislation therefore, in certain cases, denies judicial protection to persons still deprived of their liberty. In cases of termination of collateral before a decision of the Administrative Court, foreigners shall be denied the possibility of obtaining an assessment of the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty, including compensation for its possible illegality. A similar termination of proceedings before a decision by the Supreme Administrative Court also contradicts constitutional requirements. Article 5 (4) of the Convention does not require States to establish more than one judicial instance for the review of the legality of detention. However, if the State itself has created a system which provides for a second judicial instance, it must, according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, also grant the same guarantees as at first instance. The contested legislation affects largely the decision-making and unifying practice of the Supreme Administrative Court. Already in the decision of 27.6.2001 sp. zn.
Statement by the Minister for the Interior
31. The Minister of the Interior stated that the constitutionality of the adoption of the contested provisions had no bearing on the fact that the Ministry of the Interior cooperated on the parliamentary proposal. The law on the residence of foreigners is a very complex law, which is why it is logical that Member Boy turned to the Gestor Code for help. It also does not affect the applicability of Paragraph 169r (1) (b). (j) the law on the residence of foreigners legislative - technical error consisting of the unnecessary insertion of the "which." These are obvious errors, not the intention of the legislature to further develop this sentence, as speculated by the appellants.
32. On Paragraph 169r (1) (j) of the Act on the residence of foreigners, the Minister stated that it concerns only foreigners residing illegally in the Czech Republic or foreigners whose stay in the Czech Republic has been terminated. This provision does not contradict Union law and is not discriminatory. The personal application of Directive 2004 / 38 is limited to citizens of the European Union who move or reside in another Member State whose nationals they are not and to their family members who accompany or follow them. The case-law of the Court, referred to by the appellants and the Ombudsman, cannot be relied on in the circumstances covered by the provisions of Paragraph 169r (1) (j) of the Aliens' Residence Act.
33. The infringement of the prohibition of discrimination may be contested only in respect of a particular law. Because the rights under Directive 2004 / 38 only attest to family members of citizens of the European Union who have exercised the right of free movement, this cannot be discrimination if national law contains partly a derogation for foreigners - family members of citizens of the Czech Republic who have not exercised the right of free movement. A total of 1 569 applications for a temporary residence permit were submitted from the period of application of the contested provision until 31 December 2017. They have only been terminated in 22 cases. These figures illustrate the reason for the existence of the contested legal provision. This also suggests that the Ministry of the Interior does not make the stay of family members arbitrarily difficult.
34. If foreigners are not extended their current long-term residence permit or even cancelled, it is in their own interest, according to the Minister of the Interior, to apply in due time (i.e. during the period of validity of the residence permit) and avoid the need to travel from the Czech Republic. If a foreign-family member of a Czech citizen has reason to believe that his travel from the territory of the Czech Republic to the country of origin or to a country where he could apply for a short-stay visa is not possible, he should apply for a long-stay visa pursuant to § 33 (1) (a) of the Foreign Code. If there are no grounds for granting it, then he should travel from the Czech Republic. The Minister of Interior therefore proposed that the Constitutional Court reject the application for annulment of the provisions of Paragraph 169r (1) (j) of the Aliens residence law.
35. In the past, the issue of securing foreigners was dealt with by the Constitutional Court, which, according to the Minister, does not mind a significantly lower standard of judicial protection for secured foreigners compared to, for example, Czech citizens in criminal custody. The provision of foreign nationals is not explicitly mentioned in Article 8 of the Charter and therefore does not have a specific constitutional basis. If the administrative decision to secure a stranger is not subject to automatic judicial control, it does not contradict constitutional order. The contested provisions of the Act on the residence of foreigners and the Asylum Act on the suspension of judicial review after the end of the guarantee were intended to remove the unnecessary burden on the administrative courts and strengthen the security of the Czech Republic after reaching the objective pursued by the action or appeal complaint, i.e. the release of a stranger from detention. If a complaint is lodged, it should be noted that the judicial review of the administrative decision to secure the alien has already been carried out. It is not possible to deduce from the case-law of the Court of Justice, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights or the Czech constitutional order the obligation of a two-way judicial review of an administrative decision.
36. The appellants completely ignore the specificity of the reinsurance institute, which limits the personal freedom of a stranger. The administrative authority shall be obliged to act as quickly as possible in such cases as soon as the reasons for the freezing have passed. Paragraph 172 (6) of the Act on the residence of foreigners de facto provides for the same procedure as foreseen in § 62 of the EC Treaty in the form of an institution of satisfaction of the appellant. The contested provisions aim not to discriminate against foreigners, but to protect the public interest. If an alien wishes to claim damages under the State Liability Act, he may use the action for protection against unlawful interference in accordance with the provisions of § 82 of the EC Treaty, or he may claim damages caused by the detention itself, i.e. by an incorrect official procedure under the provisions of § 13 of Act No. 82 / 1998 Coll., on liability for damage caused in the exercise of public authority by a decision or by an incorrect official procedure and amending Act No. 358 / 1992 Coll., on notaries and their activities (notarial order), as amended by Act No. 160 / 2006 Coll. An administrative decision is made on the obligation to pay the costs of detention, so foreigners can also defend themselves against this decision.
37. The Minister of the Interior has pointed out that most foreigners abuse an application for a temporary or permanent residence permit to temporarily legalise their stay in the Czech Republic or to avert an imminent expulsion without a real relationship with a citizen of the European Union. The contested provisions affect these manifestly purposeful negotiations and can thus be regarded as legitimate and included in the public interest of the State in the effective control of immigration, which in its case-law also recognises as legitimate the European Court of Human Rights (see, for example, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 14 June 2011 in Osman v Denmark, Case 38058 / 09, paragraph 58). Therefore, the Minister also requested the annulment of the provisions of § 172 (6) of the Aliens' Residence Act and § 46a (9) and § 73 (8) of the Asylum Act.
Active procedural legitimacy and management conditions
38. Under Article 64 (1) (b) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, a group of at least 17 senators has the right to file an application for annulment of the law or its individual provisions. This proposal was made by a group of 18 senators. In accordance with Article 64 (5) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 320 / 2002 Coll., it also attached to it a signature document to which each of them individually confirmed that it was attached to the application. The applicants therefore comply with the condition of active legitimacy.
39. The proposal contains all the legal requirements required and is admissible within the meaning of the provisions of Section 66 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll. At the same time, there are no grounds to terminate the procedure under Paragraph 67 of the same Law. The Constitutional Court decided on the application without ordering oral proceedings because it did not carry out the taking of evidence under the provisions of § 44 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended. Further clarification could not be expected from the hearing.
Legislative procedure for the adoption of the contested provisions
40. The Constitutional Court in the intentions of the provisions of § 68 paragraph 2 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., examined whether the contested provisions had been adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution of the Czech Republic by the designated competence and by the constitutionally prescribed manner. He found that the legislative process leading to the adoption of the contested provisions had complied with constitutional requirements, as can be seen from the observations of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate (paragraphs 26 and 27 above).
Derogation of the contested provisions
41. Paragraph 169r (1) (j) of the Aliens residence law reads as follows:
Withdrawal of proceedings
(1) The order also stops the application procedure if the alien
(...)
(j) who has submitted an application for a temporary residence permit as a family member of a citizen of the Czech Republic or a permanent residence under Title IVa at the time when he is not entitled to reside in the territory under this Act or during the period of validity of the exit order; This shall not apply where the application is made during the period of validity of the exit order issued after the alien has expired the period of authorisation to reside in the territory of the beneficiary of supplementary protection or after he has given up his declaration of asylum. ';
42. Paragraph 172 (6) of the Aliens Act reads as follows:
Actions
(...)
(6) In the event that the detention of a stranger is terminated before the decision of the court on the action against the decision on the detention of a stranger, the action against the decision on the extension of the duration of the detention of a stranger or the decision on the removal from the establishment is taken, the court shall stop the action. The competent court hearing the action shall immediately inform the police of the termination of the detention of a foreigner. The first and second sentences shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal proceedings. '
43. Paragraph 46a (9) of the Asylum Act reads as follows:
(...)
(9) Where the detention of an applicant for international protection or an alien is terminated before the court has given its decision on an action against a freezing decision or an action against a decision extending the duration of the security, the court shall terminate the action. The Ministry shall immediately inform the competent court hearing the action of the termination of the security of the applicant for international protection or of the alien. The first and second sentences shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal proceedings. '
44. Paragraph 73 (8) of the Asylum Act reads as follows:
Management at the reception centre or international airport
(...)
(8) Where an applicant or a foreigner is allowed to enter the territory before the decision of the court on an action against a decision to refuse entry into the territory or an action against a decision to extend the period for which entry into the territory cannot be authorised, the court shall terminate the action. The Ministry shall immediately inform the competent court hearing the action of the admission into the territory of the applicant for international protection or of the alien. The first and second sentences shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal proceedings. '
Meritorious review of the proposal
General considerations
45. Under the guarantee provided for in Article 4 The Constitution of the Czech Republic are fundamental rights and freedoms under the protection of judicial power. This negative rule of competence prevents legislators from adopting legislation which, in individual cases, withdraws the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms from the courts.
46. The Charter provides, in the context of the fundamental right of judicial and other legal protection, for any right of access to a court, that is to say, the right to seek its right in an independent and impartial court and, in specified cases, another authority.
47. The right of access to a court belonging to the main attributes of a democratic rule of law may be subject to legal restrictions. However, the restrictions laid down must not prevent access to the court in such a way or to such an extent that the right of a person is affected in its substance. The restrictions are constitutionally consistent only if they pursue a legitimate objective, provided a reasonable balance between the resources used and the objective pursued (judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 28.5.1985 in Ashingdane v United Kingdom, Case No 8225 / 78, paragraph 57; judgment of 20.4.2004 in Bulena v Czech Republic, Case No 57567 / 00, paragraph 29).
48. These limits apply, also in relation to access to the court and the decision in the present case. The right of access to the Court is not exhausted simply by the submission of a case to the judgment, but also contains, after the proper course of the proceedings, the right to a judgment of the Court of Human Rights (judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 15 October 2009 in the case of Kohlhofer and Minarik v Czech Republic, complaint No 32921 / 03, 28464 / 04, 5344 / 05, § 90; closer to Kmek, J. Košák, D., Kratochchul, J., Bobek, M. European Convention on Human Rights. Issue 1. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2012, p. 664-668, comment from J. Kmece).
49. The Charter guarantees an individual who claims to have been shortened on his rights by a decision of a public authority, the right to apply to the court for review of the legality of such a decision; the law may provide for exclusions from this rule. It is about specifying Article 4 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic in relation to decisions of public authorities, according to which, moreover (second sentence of the provision cited by the Charter), the review of decisions concerning fundamental rights and freedoms under the Charter must not be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Court.
50. The constitutional review of the contested provisions is based on the priority of the above-mentioned procedural guarantees guaranteed by constitutional order, as only through them can the material content of a particular fundamental right or freedom be effectively protected. The legal objective of all the provisions had to be derived mainly from the wording itself (even in the context of both amended laws) and from the statement of the Minister of Interior on constitutional review. The explanatory report on the draft Act No. 222 / 2017 Coll., amending Act No. 326 / 1999 Coll., on the residence of foreigners in the Czech Republic and on the amendment of certain laws, as amended, and other related laws, dealt with, with the exception of several passages related in substance, exclusively by other provisions - the revised standards were supplemented on the basis of a parliamentary amendment. The issue of access to the court and administrative authority to the case is a key role in the control of the standards in question, since all the provisions under review contain the same moment in the termination of proceedings.
Review of the constitutional provisions of § 169r (1) (j) of the Act on the residence of foreigners
51. In this part of the constitutional review, the plenary of the Constitutional Court had to answer the question whether the administrative procedure for the request of a foreign-family national of a Czech citizen for a permanent or temporary stay should be completed in a situation where he is not entitled to reside in the territory of the state or has been ordered to leave the territory of the Czech Republic.
52. The framework thus established was first in charge of examining whether the contested provision pursued a certain (and defensible) legitimate objective. In the sources indicated above, effective control of migration should have been a legitimate objective (see, for example, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 14 June 2011 in Osman v Denmark, Case No 38058 / 09, § 58). Special consideration was given to preventing illegal stays of foreigners and to increasing the efficiency of administrative procedures, as the subsequent travel of a stranger without a residence permit from the territory of the State makes no sense, according to the legislator, in the procedure for a residence permit. In his comments on the proposal, the Minister of the Interior accentuated that a number of foreigners were misusing applications for a temporary or permanent residence permit for the temporary legalisation of their stay in the Czech Republic or for the deterrence of imminent expulsion without a real family relationship with the Czech citizen. According to him, the contested provision is intended to prevent this purposeful practice.
53. The Constitutional Court has no reason to change its previous conclusions regarding the absence of a subjective constitutional-guaranteed unlimited right of foreigners to reside in the Czech Republic. It is a matter of the sovereign state under which the residence of foreigners on its territory is permitted [Findings sp. zn. According to Article 42 (2) However, in the Czech Republic, foreigners enjoy the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter if they are not granted only to Czech citizens (e.g. the right to vote). Thus, although the subjective constitutional right of foreigners to reside in the Czech Republic does not exist, the Charter guarantees foreigners rights which may be affected by the exclusion of residence, including the right to protection against unauthorised interference in private and family life (Article 10 (2) of the Charter).
54. In administrative proceedings concerning the application of a foreigner for a residence permit, the administrative authority shall examine whether the alien is actually a family member of a citizen of the Czech Republic; it therefore also ascertains the existence of a de facto family link. The primary protection of the fundamental rights of a stranger is to be implemented in this administrative procedure. However, Paragraph 169r (1) (j) of the Aliens' Residence Act withdraws that protection by a legal order to terminate the proceedings, thereby preventing not only the continuation of administrative proceedings but also subsequent access to the courts within the meaning of Article 36 (1) of the Charter. At the same time, it is a court which, pursuant to Article 36 (2) of the Charter, is entitled to review the legality of an administrative decision if the applicant claims to have been shortened by it on his rights.
55. Although the contested provision is not formulated directly as an exclusion from the judicial review of a particular decision in an administrative procedure, it is clear that the obligation to suspend the administrative procedure which takes place has such an effect. Although an appeal to the Commission for decision on the residence of aliens at the Ministry of the Interior is admissible against the order for termination of proceedings, in such a procedure the Commission is no longer in a position to examine whether the applicant fulfils the substantive conditions for the issue of the residence permit but only whether the grounds for the termination of the procedure have been given. The same applies to subsequent administrative proceedings if a foreign family member of a citizen of the Czech Republic brings an administrative action.
56. In addition, the right of access to a court is not exhausted simply by submitting a case to the competent public authority, but also contains the right to a decision to be taken in a formically manner (paragraph 48 above), provided that the proceedings in conformity with the Law on a case are conducted. However, under the legislation under review, the second objective of the right of access to the court cannot be fulfilled as it is prevented from bringing an administrative procedure to an end. Thus, the violation of the procedural law is a denial of justice (denegatio iustitiae), which means the unconstitutional abolition of the right to judicial protection as a fundamental feature of the rule of law.
57. The legal objectives of the contested legislation are effective control of migration and undoubtedly compliance with the Czech legislation. However, these objectives are implemented by means of a procedural device (institute of termination of proceedings) which undermines the public interest and avoids individual interest. The travel of a foreign-family member of a Czech citizen is carried out under the current denial of his right to enjoy the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter in the territory of the State (Article 42 (2)). If such an applicant wants to obtain a residence permit after the termination of the procedure of his application after all, he has no choice but to revisit the Czech Republic and apply again. If the case-law, in case of limitation of the right of access to the court, points out the way in which values and principles are measured in order to strike a reasonable balance between the means used and the objective of legal regulation (paragraph 47), then compliance with this requirement cannot be inferred from.
58. The exclusion of procedural guarantees under Article 36 (1) and (2) of the Charter, the common denominator of which is the further administrative procedure followed by the right to judicial review of an administrative decision, also infringes the fundamental right of the applicant to private and family life under Article 10 (2) of the Charter, in conjunction with the provisions of Article 32 of the Charter on the protection of parenthood, family and children, as appropriate. In the intentions of the contested legislation, it is certainly clear that if an alien has submitted an application "as a family member of a citizen of the Czech Republic," this means an active legitimacy for the application for a residence permit and in administrative proceedings the existence of legal conditions for the issue of such a permit is established. However, this does not change the fact that, by ceasing the procedure, the applicant deprives himself of the possibility of staying in the Czech Republic if, according to the administrative authority (and in fact), he / she is entitled to legalise, and to be in contact with his / her family member on the territory of the State.
59. In essence, the Constitutional Court has no choice but to deal with the appellants' objection to the very wording of the provision under review. Although the words "if a stranger" used at the beginning of paragraph 1 (169r) of the Act on the residence of foreigners are contained in the common part of the hypothesis in question, they are followed by the word "which, under point (j) of the same paragraph," before the words "submitted an application" (followed by a further text of the terms of the law). "Such a connection evokes the legislator's possible intention to make available legal rules (ceasing proceedings) even more widespread, but the following text, sub j) does not support that. However, in circumstances other than the deregulation of the rule of law, nothing would prevent the interpretation of the described legislative plaza and (sub) in a constitutional manner, in the sense of the law, so that the superfluous reference pronouns would not be taken into account.
60. As a result of the review of the constitutionality of the first of the contested provisions of the Aliens Act, it is concluded that it infringed the provisions of Articles 36 (1) and (2) and Article 10 (2) of the Charter, the first two procedural guarantees of individual judicial protection cannot be omitted from the infringement of Article 4 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, under which fundamental rights and freedoms are protected by judicial authority.
Joint review of the constitutionality of the provisions of § 172 (6) of the Act on the residence of foreigners and of § 46a (9) and § 73 (8) of the Act on asylum
61. The motive behind the legislature to adopt these contested provisions, which is a presummed legitimate objective, was obviously to simplify the procedure or reduce the burden on the general courts in the administrative review. The aim of delaying the courts was based on the very fact that the objective pursued by the administrative action or appeal was achieved: if collateral ("detention ') of a stranger or an applicant for international protection has been terminated, such termination of the restriction (waiver) of personal liberty shall fulfil the objective pursued by the applicant's action against collateral and review proceedings brought against a freezing decision under the administrative order of the court, whether before a regional court or in the appeal proceedings. Similarly, this applies in relation to the limitation of the applicant's personal freedom at the reception centre or at an international airport (Section 73 (8) of the Asylum Act).
62. The appellants argue here that there is a breach of the right to judicial protection through the failure to respect the guarantee laid down in Article 36 (2) of the Charter, according to which the review of decisions relating to fundamental rights and freedoms under the Charter cannot be excluded from the jurisdiction of the court. This claim underpins the interpretation of the fundamental law cited. Although the judicial review of the administrative decision on detention is ongoing, it cannot be completed as a result of (the complainant challenged) the termination of the procedure.
63. Thus, as with the constitutional considerations, the provision of Paragraph 169r (1) (j) of the Act on the residence of foreigners repeats the problem of compliance with individual procedural guarantees. Once again, in addition to the interference already mentioned in the right to review the legality of a decision by a public authority, the right of access to the court itself is at stake. This is ensured in the intentions of the provisions of Article 36 (1) of the Charter, the whole system of procedural guarantees resulting from the constitutional right to a fair trial; the right to access the court stands at the beginning of the trial. Once again, the unacceptable restriction of access to the court prevents a matter from being dealt with in a meritorious manner.
64. Access to the court shall be effected by bringing the case before the court and following the proper conduct of the proceedings by decision on the substance of the case. However, if it is brought to a standstill in the course of the proceedings, however important a fact such as the termination of a detention procedure is not fulfilled either (cf. point 48). The resulting procedural situation is remarkable from the point of view of constitutional control when comparing all four contested provisions: whereas, in the event of the termination of the administrative procedure concerning the request of a foreign national of the Czech Republic, the objective of his application for a permit (permanent or temporary) of residence cannot be achieved, by stopping the judicial review of the administrative decision on reinsurance, the objective of the action against this decision is prima facie ("in fact '), since the administrative authority has already ended the restriction of personal freedom. Nevertheless, the appellants are pleading" over "against the legislator's point of view, that is, the continuation of the administrative review even after the end of the detention.
65. The positive response of the Constitutional Court to the appellants' arguments is based on both human law and case law and is based on two fundamental reasons. The first consists in the limitation (removal) of personal freedom itself, which is, in principle, so significant an intervention in physical and mental integrity (cf. Articles 7 (1) and 8 (1) of the Charter) that the review of the legality of such a restriction must be carried out in full, including in terms of social control of this type of interference in fundamental rights and freedoms. The second ground is based on the need to maintain the possibility for a person held in detention to claim compensation against the State in the case of a judicial decision on the illegality of restrictions on personal freedom. The termination of proceedings under all three contested provisions is an immediate obstacle to the implementation of both grounds.
66. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasised the requirement for the procedural and material legality of the deprivation of liberty, as well as the importance of the immediate and rapid judicial control of such a restriction (see, for example, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 3 October 2006 in the McKay case against the United Kingdom, complaint No 543 / 03, § 30). In the present case, in particular, Article 5 (4) of the Convention, which constitutes habeas corpus provision, plays a role. It gives every person deprived of personal freedom the right to apply for a procedure in which the Court of First Instance decides urgently on the lawfulness of the measure and orders the release, if the waiver is illegal (judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of 9.7.2009 in Mooren v Germany, Case No 11364 / 03, paragraph 106; judgment of 28.10.2003 in Rakevich v Russia, judgment of 58973 / 00, § 43).
67. The purpose of the review referred to in Article 5 (4) Indeed, the Convention is, in particular, the release of a person if its deprivation of liberty proves illegal (judgment of the Grand Chamber of 19 February 2009 in Case A and Others v United Kingdom, complaint No 3455 / 05, § 200; or judgment of 9.10.2003 in Slivenko v Latvia, complaint No 48321 / 99, § 158; judgment of 9.11.2010 in Osypenko v Ukraine, complaint No 4634 / 04, § 84-85). At the same time, however, the fact that the restriction of personal freedom has ended cannot, according to the European Court of Human Rights, deprive the person concerned of the right to examine the legality of such a measure even after its termination. Guarantees under Article 5 (4) The conventions also apply to existing judicial appeals in these matters. It would be pointless if the judicial control of detention were only possible for as long as the effects of such a measure persist (Case 41124 / 02 [2006] ECR 41124 / 02 [2006] ECR 74; or Case No 277 / 05 [2011] ECR 76.2011 [2011] ECR I-661). In the Smatana case against the Czech Republic (Case No 18642 / 04, § 82-91, 123, 137, 141) The European Court of Human Rights noted a breach of the complainant's right to freedom and personal security pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention, in paragraph 3 (the reasons put forward by the national courts in their decisions on the custody of the complainant were not sufficient to be kept in custody during the period), in paragraph 4 (the lawfulness of the complainant's custody was not decided urgently) and in paragraph 5 (the national case-law did not guarantee the complainant the right to compensation for deprivation of liberty at the relevant time). The latter infringement took place, inter alia, because the complainant's contested custody decisions were not annulled by the Czech courts, including the Constitutional Tribunal, after the waiver of his personal freedom had already been terminated.
68. If, as a result of the termination of proceedings, the court is not able to examine the lawfulness of the applicant's detention, the applicant is denied the right to obtain any compensation against the State for the unlawful removal or restriction of liberty, since the claim for compensation caused by an unlawful decision (also on the restriction of liberty) is conditional on the suspension or amendment by the competent authority of the provisions of Article 8 (1) of Law No 82 / 1998. the decision of that authority shall be binding upon the court determining the compensation.
69. Article 5 (5) Any person who has been arrested or detained or otherwise deprived of liberty in breach of Article 5 of the Convention shall be entitled to compensation. The State shall fulfil its obligations under this provision, where its legal order gives individuals the opportunity to claim compensation for deprivation of liberty contrary to the conditions of paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 5 of the Convention (judgment of the Grand Chamber of 17 January 2012 in Case No 36760 / 06, § 182; judgment of 13 October 2016 in Case No 62507 / 12, § 153; judgment of 17 March 2009 in Case No Houtman and Meeus v Belgium, Case No 22945 / 07, § 43). In this context, it is necessary that the possibility of making effective use of the right to compensation be guaranteed with sufficient certainty (judgment of the Grand Chamber of 18 December 2002 in case N. C. against Italy, Case No 24952 / 94, § 49). The cessation of legal proceedings in which the legality of the restriction (removal) of liberty is examined excludes the effective use of the right to compensation.
70. The Constitutional Court has reached the just summarized conclusions of constitutional positions. However, it cannot be overlooked that the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court is taking a similar course; However, it is in relation to the case-law practice of this court that the conclusions reached are of the utmost importance, since, given the short timelimits for the ruling of the regional courts on administrative actions, the proceedings will normally be terminated in the course of the appeal proceedings (and therefore the Supreme Administrative Court cannot, among other things, fulfil its role as a unifier of caselaw here). In judgment No j. 6 Azs 320 / 2017- 20 of 29.11.2017 The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that, if, pursuant to Article 172 (6) of the Aliens' residence law, it is not possible for a court to declare the illegality of a judgment on detention by the police at any stage of the proceedings, since the restriction of the personal freedom of a stranger under this Decision is no longer applicable, such a national provision is not applicable to a conflict with European Union law, with Article 15 of Directive 2008 / 115 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on common standards and procedures in Member States for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals and Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In addition, the Supreme Administrative Court, as now the Constitutional Court, found infringement of Article 5 (4) and (5) of the Convention.
71. The three provisions of the Aliens' and Asylum Act were therefore contested in breach of Article 36 (1) of the Charter and Article 5 (4) and (5) of the Convention.
Conclusion
72. The Constitutional Court found the contested provision of Article 169r (1) (j) of the Act on the residence of foreigners contradictory to the right of access to the court pursuant to Article 36 (1) of the Charter and to the judicial review of decisions of public authorities pursuant to Article 36 (2) of the Charter, both in conjunction with Article 4 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic and the right to protection against unauthorised interference in private and family life pursuant to Article 10 (2) of the Charter. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of § 70 (1) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., the Act repealed that provision on the date of the publication of this finding in the Collection of Laws.
73. The Constitutional Court has found the contested provisions of Article 172 (6) of the Act on the residence of foreigners and of Article 46a (9) and Article 73 (8) of the Act on asylum contradicting the right of access to the Court under Article 36 (1) of the Charter and the judicial review of decisions of public authorities under Article 36 (2) of the Charter, again in conjunction with Article 4 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, as well as the right to review of the lawfulness of deprivation pursuant to Article 5 (4) of the Convention and the right of compensation under Article 5 (5) of the Convention. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of § 70 (1) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., those provisions were annulled by the date of the publication of this finding in the Collection of Laws.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v. r.
Different opinions under Article 14 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, were taken by the Judges Vladimir Sládeček and Radovan Suchanek for a decision and by Judge Jiří Zemánek for his reasons.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No. 16 / 2019 Coll., on the application for annulment of certain provisions of Act No. 325 / 1999 Coll., on Asylum, as amended, and Act No. 326 / 1999 Coll., on the residence of foreigners in the Czech Republic and on the amendment of certain laws, as amended |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | - |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 21.01.2019 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0