The Constitutional Court found No 183 / 2022 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 14 June 2022 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 10 / 22 on the application for annulment of certain provisions of Act No. 324 / 2021 Coll., on the one-off compensation of entities affected by an emergency in the area of the munitions storage of Vřechovice and on the amendment of certain laws
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
183
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
The Constitutional Court decided under sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 10 / 22 on 14 June 2022 in plenary, composed of the Vice-President of the Court of Milady Tomková and the Judges Louis David, Josef Fial, Jan Filip, Tomáš Lichovník, Radovan Suchanek (Judge of the Rapporteur), Pavel Šámal, Vojtěch Šimík, David Uhír and Jiří Zemánek on the proposal of a group of senators, represented by JUDr. (3) (b), § 6 (1) in the words "permanent 'and" permanent', § 6 (2) in the words "permanent ', § 6 (3).
as follows:
The provisions of § 3 (3) (a) in the words "registered for permanent residence ', § 3 (3) (b), § 6 (1) in the words" permanent' and "permanent ', § 6 (2) in the word" permanent', § 6 (3) in the word "permanent ', § 6 (4) in the words" permanent' and Article 6 (5) of the Act No. 324 / 2021 Coll., on the one-off compensation of entities affected by an emergency event in the premises of the Vrachovice-Vrètice and on the amendment of certain laws, shall be repealed from the date of the publication of this Decision.
Reasons
Subject matter
1. On 6 April 2022, the Constitutional Court received a proposal from a group of 19 Senators, for which Senator Michael Canov (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant '), represented by that lawyer, on the abolition of certain provisions of Act No. 324 / 2021 Coll., on the one-off compensation of entities affected by an emergency at the premises of the Vlachovice-Vrbětice munitions warehouses and on the amendment of certain laws (hereinafter referred to as" the One-Time Compensation Act' or "the Law '). In particular, the appellant requests that the Constitutional Court annul Sections 3 (3) (b) and 6 (5) of the Single Compensation Act. In the case of other contested provisions of the law, it requires the cancellation of only some individual words, which result in compensation for an exceptional occurrence on the premises of the munitions warehouses of Vlachovice-Vrbětice being paid only to such natural person who, at the relevant time, had a permanent residence (or in the case of foreigners) in the territory of one of the municipalities concerned. It therefore proposes that the Constitutional Court also repeal the provisions of Paragraph 3 (3) (a) in the words" permanent residence', Article 6 (1) in the words "permanent 'and" permanent', Article 6 (2) in the word "permanent ', Article 6 (3) in the word" permanent' and Article 6 (4) in the words "permanent ', for their contradiction with the constitutional principle of equality and the prohibition of discrimination referred to in Article 3 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (" Charter') and Article 14 of the Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms ("Convention ').
2. The application was submitted pursuant to Article 64 (1) (b) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, requesting priority consideration of its proposal on grounds of urgency under Article 39 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll. The urgent point is that the One-Time Compensation Act in § 7 states that the claim for compensation must be applied by 30 June 2022 at the latest, otherwise it shall cease to exist. According to the appellant, the annulment of the Constitutional Court's finding, issued after the expiry of this pre-compulsory period of entitlement, would make it more difficult to protect the rights of the beneficiaries effectively. It therefore considers it essential for the Constitutional Court to decide on the application for annulment of the relevant provisions of the One-Time Compensation Act, as a matter of priority, so that persons unconstitutionally excluded from the right to compensation (damage) may apply their claim to the Ministry of the Interior responsible under Article 8 (1) of the One-Time Compensation Act in due time.
Arguments of the appellant
3. The appellant's argument essentially calls into question the constitutionality of the definition of natural persons who are entitled to compensation in the context of an exceptional event in the premises of Vlichovice-Vrbětice munitions warehouses. Only those natural persons who have fulfilled the legal definition of the so-called authorised person defined in § 3 (3) of the Act during the relevant period may receive compensation. The Single Compensation Act is designed in such a way that the decisive criterion for granting the status of authorised natural person is only permanent residence in the municipality and in the case of foreigners a permanent residence permit in one of the municipalities concerned. As a result, there was an unconstitutional exclusion of the right to compensation for persons "who had actually long-term residence in the designated municipalities but did not fulfil the administrative conditions for registration of permanent residence in the municipality or outside the reporting centre or, in the case of foreigners, sharpened conditions for the acquisition of permanent residence, although they felt the same damage as citizens with granted compensation '.
4. The appellant contends that the requirement of permanent residence in the territory of one of the municipalities concerned constitutes direct discrimination, in particular, of persons who live in the municipality for a long time, but who do not have a permanent residence in it for various reasons. In her view, "persons who have actually stayed in the relevant period permanently 'in the affected territory but had not registered a specific address in one of the listed municipalities as a permanent residence are, in terms of the damage experienced and therefore the purpose of the Single Compensation Act pursued, in an identical capacity as those who had been registered in one of these municipalities... The criterion of permanent residence does not seek to protect the required public values, i.e. it does not sufficiently cover those people who have actually been affected by the exceptional event, have actually intervened in their lives, and indeed have reduced their quality of life'. The different treatment of these groups of persons is not justifiable and legitimate when, according to the explanatory memorandum, it is motivated by a reduction in the administrative burden and by a link to the non-profit-making compensation system provided by the Government Resolution of 21 December 2015 No 1090. According to the appellant, the argument that the contested provisions of the One-Time Compensation Act are linked to the earlier" non-annual subsidy scheme 'is completely inappropriate. According to the appellant, the contested provisions of the Single Compensation Act are incompatible with the prohibition of discrimination under Article 3 (1) of the Charter and Article 14 of the Convention. The appellant submits that "other status' as a discriminatory criterion within the meaning of Article 3 (1) of the Charter" in this case it is possible to understand the place of residence of the person '.
5. The unfairness of the permanent residence criterion, having an impact on the constitutionality of the provisions concerned, is to be enhanced by the fact that there is no legal requirement for persons to register specific places where they reside. According to the author, the criterion of actual residence should be preferred, both for citizens of the Czech Republic and for foreign citizens. This is used by the rule of law against citizens of municipalities, so it is not an unknown criterion. In particular, the appellant draws attention to Article 16 (3) of Act No. 128 / 2000 Coll., on Municipality (municipal establishment), and to Act No. 108 / 2006 Coll., on Social Services, as amended, which is intended to lay down the obligations of the municipality towards all persons living in its territory.
6. Finally, the appellant draws attention to the "problem of the provision of Article 6 (5) of the Law, according to which the beneficiary is not entitled to a one-off compensation for the part of the period in question when the place of permanent residence was the registered office of the municipality. There is no justification for this legislation in the explanatory memorandum to the provision cited. The legislator's intention is therefore not clear here. From a material point of view, it is unclear why permanent residents in the reporting centre should not be entitled to the same compensation as permanent residents elsewhere in the municipality. If the use of the permanent residence criterion is discussed mainly because of its administrative simplicity and, where appropriate, evidence, then for persons registered in the registered office, these criteria apply to the same extent, if not higher. Nor is it at all discussed whether they were persons who actually lived in the municipality at the time of the emergency, i.e. who were actually affected by the event and who suffered injury '. If the explanatory memorandum to Paragraph 6 (5) of the Act mentions only that persons who actually live at the address of the office of the reporting office are not excluded from the possibility of claiming compensation, this substantial exception is only reflected in the explanatory memorandum, not in the legal standard itself.
7. The appellant notes that the issue of the above-mentioned criterion of permanent residence was recognised by the Senate when discussing the draft law and states that the above-mentioned deficiencies were highlighted by its rapporteur, Senator Ing. Leopold Sulovský. At the same time, however, the Senators were aware of the "very specific situation in which the refunding of the Act on 18 August 2021... may have caused the motion not to be approved at the end of the parliamentary term," which is why the Senate decided to approve the bill in the text submitted.
Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
8. In accordance with Article 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended, the Judge-Rapporteur sent the proposal to the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, acting on behalf of Parliament as a party to the proceedings, and to the Government and the Ombudsman as authorities entitled to intervene as interveners. In the light of the observations received, which do not contain facts for the appellant unknown or contested by the appellant, as well as in the light of the timeliness of the case under consideration (see paragraphs 2, 47 and 48) and the outcome of the proceedings, the Constitutional Court has no longer sent those observations to the appellant in the light of the appellant and any reply.
Observation of Parliament's chambers
9. In a brief statement by the Chamber of Deputies, signed by its President, it is submitted that the draft act on one-off compensation was discussed as House Press No. 1250 / 0, "at the first reading of 30 July 2021 at the 115th session of the House agreed to the hearing so that it could agree to the draft act at first reading." The bill was subsequently adopted at first reading in vote 17 (resolution 1764), when 113 of the 123 Members present voted in favour of the motion and no one opposed it. The Chamber of Deputies passed the bill on 3 August 2021 to the Senate, which discussed and approved it on 18 August 2021. The President of the Republic signed the Act on 29 August 2021, after which it was declared in the Collection of Laws in the amount of 143 under No 324 / 2021 Coll.
10. The Senate, signed by its President, shall recap the content of the proposal and state that the bill was passed on on 3. 8. 2021. The Senate Organizing Committee ordered this proposal, as Senate Press No. 141, to be discussed by the Committee on Economy, Agriculture and Transport, as well as the Constitutional Law Committee. Both committees have recommended approving the bill as referred to by the Chamber of Deputies. The Senate discussed the bill at its 15th meeting in its 13th term of office on 18 August 2021. Only a brief debate took place when discussing the bill on the Senate plenary. The comments of the Senate cite the words of the rapporteur of the Constitutional-Legal Committee of Senator Ing. Tomáš Golána, which indicate that, despite certain reservations to the draft law, it is necessary to approve it as quickly as possible so that the natural persons, the Zlín Region and the municipalities concerned receive compensation as soon as possible. It pointed out that neither the residents nor the mayors of the municipalities concerned have reservations about the application of the Institute of "permanent residence 'to the legal definition of authorised natural persons.
Government communications
11. By its notification of 4 May 2022, signed by the Minister of Legislation and the Chairman of the Legislative Council of the Government, the Government informed the Constitutional Court that it had adopted Resolution 356 at its meeting on the same day, which decided not to use its right to intervene.
The Ombudsman's observations
12. The Constitutional Court received on 21 April 2022 a communication from the Ombudsman stating that, pursuant to Article 69 (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended, it was intervening. On 19 May 2022, the Constitutional Court sent its observations on the application. The Ombudsman stated that the application for annulment of the contested provisions of the Single Compensation Act was in agreement and that the Constitutional Court should fully comply with the proposal.
13. The contested provisions of the law, according to the Ombudsman, will not stand the test of direct discrimination. It considers it essential that the purpose of the Act is to provide one-off compensation to persons affected by an explosion in an ammunition warehouse. It is clear that "people living in the area... in connection with the explosion and the subsequent destruction of this emergency (mainly the removal of ammunition) suffered psychological and sometimes material damage and had to face many restrictions (e.g. ordered evacuation, ban on cultivation of land, etc.). The compensation granted is thus intended to reduce the reduction in quality of life in the municipalities listed... '. It follows that an individual who lived in the municipality and had a permanent residence here is in a comparable position to that who actually lived there, but had a permanent residence elsewhere for various reasons. The Ombudsman stresses that the reason for the choice of the permanent residence criterion should have been the simplicity of administering such claims for compensation. According to the explanatory memorandum to the law, permanent residence is an easily verifiable figure, and therefore the complex evidence of a real stay is excluded, which would be very difficult. However, the explanatory memorandum no longer" says that the Czech legal order knows the proof of the actual residence and uses it in many areas. In addition, simplifying the processing of applications is an advantage primarily for the State, certainly not an advantage for those who lose their ability to claim compensation as a result of this simplification. "The interest in the rapid processing of applications, according to him, must not outweigh the constitutional prohibition on discrimination.
14. The non-constitutional ombudsman finds the contested provisions of the law against foreigners, especially those who have not been allowed permanent residence. He points out that "permanent residence for foreigners and permanent residence for Czech citizens is not the same. Although the two institutes have, unfortunately, the same language, different legal institutes... Permanent stay with foreigners... is a kind of residence permit in the Czech Republic, which is granted to foreigners, both to citizens of European Union States and to third States, subject to legally defined conditions... In the case of foreigners residing in the Czech Republic, the registered office shall be the place of the registered residence. In other words, the equivalent of permanent residence for Czech citizens is the place of registered residence for foreigners." Thus, the One-Time Compensation Act provides for a completely different condition for foreigners, the fulfilment of which is very difficult for foreigners and which excludes a certain proportion of foreigners, namely foreigners with temporary residence, from the right to compensation. According to the Ombudsman, there is no reason for this difference of treatment and no reason can be inferred from the meaning and purpose of the law. The Ombudsman is particularly inadmissible to underpin this legislation vis-à-vis citizens of other Member States of the European Union for its contradiction with Articles 18 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
Oral proceedings
15. The Constitutional Court concluded that further clarification of the case cannot be expected from oral proceedings and therefore, in accordance with Article 44 of the Constitutional Court Act, as amended, it decided without its regulation.
Proceedings before the Constitutional Court
16. Under Article 64 (1) (b) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, a group of at least 17 senators has the right to apply for annulment of the law or its individual provisions. The proposal in this case was made by a group of 19 senators, represented in accordance with paragraphs 29 to 31 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended, by a lawyer. In accordance with Article 64 (5) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 320 / 2002 Coll., the signature document signed by each of the 19 Senators was attached to the application. The appellant is therefore actively legitimised to submit the proposal.
17. At the same time, the Constitutional Court found no reason for inadmissibility of the application under Section 66 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., nor a reason for termination of proceedings under Section 67 of the same Act. The Constitutional Court finds that, pursuant to Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution, it is competent to consider an application which fulfils all the legal requirements. Therefore, he accepted his assessment in substance.
Constitutional conformity of the legislative process
18. In proceedings for the annulment of laws or their individual provisions, the Constitutional Court, pursuant to § 68 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., first examined the constitutionality of the legislative process. In the present case, the Constitutional Court came out on behalf of the chambers of Parliament on behalf of a party to the proceedings and from publicly available parliamentary and Senate information (https: / / www.pspp.cz and https: / / www.senat.cz). The Constitutional Court notes that the bill was adopted by the Chamber of Deputies on 30 July 2021, when 113 Members voted in favour, no objections, 10 of them abstained and 73 were excused. The Senate adopted the bill on 18.8.2021, when of the 61 senators present there were 58 for the proposal, no objections and 3 senators abstained. From the above sources, the Constitutional Court found, and for the sake of concise, only [see, for example, the findings of 17.12.2019 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 31 / 17 (N 212 / 97 CollU 269; 30 / 2020 Coll.) and 24.11.2020 sp. zl. ÚS 24 / 19 (7 / 2021 Coll.)] that the One-off Compensation Act was adopted in a constitutionally established manner within the limits of the Constitution of Parliament (Article 15 (1) of the Constitution). Moreover, neither the appellant nor the Ombudsman questions these facts, since they raise no objections to the way in which a single compensation law, which includes the contested provisions, is adopted.
Text of the contested provisions
19. The valid and effective wording of Paragraph 3 (3) of the Single Compensation Act and its context are as follows (the contested parts of the provision are marked in bold):
Authorised entities
(...)
(3) The authorised person is:
(a) a natural person who has been applied for permanent residence in the municipality referred to in paragraph 2 during the relevant period;
(b) a natural person who has held a permanent residence permit during the relevant period and has been registered in the municipality referred to in paragraph 2.
20. The valid and effective wording of Section 6 of the Single Compensation Act is as follows (the contested parts are marked in bold):
Disposable compensation of beneficiaries
(1) For the period referred to in § 2 (2) (a), the beneficiary is entitled to a one-off compensation of CZK 300 for each calendar day of permanent residence, with the exception of the beneficiary who is resident on the territory of Slavičín, where that entitlement is granted only to the beneficiary who is resident on the territory of a part of the municipality of Divnice.
(2) For the period referred to in § 2 (2) (b), the beneficiary is entitled to a one-off compensation of CZK 100 per calendar day of permanent residence.
(3) The authorised person is entitled to a one-off compensation of CZK 20 per calendar day of permanent residence for the period referred to in Section 2 (2) (c).
(4) The entitlement of a permanent resident in the municipality of Slavičín, with the exception of a permanent resident in the territory of a part of the municipality of Divnice, is set at 20% of the rates determined in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3.
(5) The authorised person shall not be entitled to one-off compensation for that part of the period in question where the place of his permanent residence was the registered office of the reporting authority.
Substantial assessment of the proposal
General considerations
21. The One-Time Compensation Act responds to an exceptional incident caused by explosions in the area of the munitions warehouses of Vlichovice-Vrbětice, in which several claims for damages (damage) or claims for compensation for other (public) restrictions on property have been created or may have occurred in the territory of one of the municipalities concerned (Section 3 (2) of the Act) in the Zlín Region. In particular, the damage (1.) caused by the explosion itself, (2.) the damage caused by the activities of the Integrated Rescue Corps components in the causal link with the rescue or liquidation operations, and finally (3.) the damage caused by the provision of personal or material assistance on the basis of a call, or as compensation for the limitation of the property or use right to land (see point 1 of the general part of the explanatory memorandum to the law).
22. It follows from the systematic and teleological interpretation that the Single Compensation Act constitutes a lex specialis with regard to Act No. 239 / 2000 Coll., on the Integrated Rescue System and on the amendment of certain laws, as amended, which provides for compensation for the limitation of the right to property or use, provision of material and personal assistance, and in § 30 compensation for damage caused to persons in connection with rescue and liquidation work and exercises carried out under this Act. It is also a lex specialis against Act No. 82 / 1998 Coll., on liability for damage caused in the exercise of public authority by decision or by maladministration and amending the Act of the Czech National Council No. 358 / 1992 Coll., on notaries and their activities (notarial order), as amended, which would provide compensation for damage, for example, in a situation of hypothetical "neglect" of administrative supervision by the State over the operation of the munitions warehouse (maladministration). According to Section 12 of the One-off Compensation Act, "by satisfying claims under this Act, the eligible entities cease to be entitled to compensation claims in accordance with the purpose set out in Section 1 under other legislation '. The One-off Compensation Act therefore affects not only the right to own property under Article 11 (1) of the Charter, but also, where appropriate, the right to compensation caused by the maladministration referred to in Article 36 (3) of the Charter and the right to compensation for the compulsory (public) restriction of the right to property under Article 11 (4) of the Charter. Under the general rules contained in Act No. 89 / 2012 Coll., Civil Code, the owner is entitled to full compensation corresponding to the extent to which his property was affected (§ 1039 (1)). This restriction on ownership must also be understood to mean the use of the property in an emergency or in an urgent public interest, unless the purpose can be achieved otherwise (Section 1037 of the Civil Code).
23. The explanatory memorandum on the draft act on one-off compensation underlines (see the general part of the Act, paragraph 2) that "the aim is to mitigate at least some of the damage suffered by the municipalities concerned and their inhabitants in the context of an exceptional occurrence in the area of the Vlichovice-Vrbětice munitions warehouse," where "the duration of the intervention has undoubtedly imposed high demands on the psyche of the municipalities in the immediate vicinity of the area." However, despite these general starting points, in the draft contested provisions, the legislator, as a decisive criterion for granting entitlement only to permanent residence in the territory of one of the municipalities concerned or, in the case of foreigners, to permanent residence permits. The explanatory memorandum (see the specific section on § 3) states that "the petitioner is aware of certain limits to this criterion, as there is a question of the relationship between the permanent residence and the actual residence of the citizen. Formal admission to permanent residence may not yet mean permanent residence in the municipality, but it is the criterion that can be most easily verified without the need to burden applicants... The criterion of permanent residence was chosen because it is a relatively easy to verify figure that can be verified through public administration information systems. Thus, it falls short of the difficult evidence of a real stay, which would be very difficult in view of the time period covered by the compensation. Entitlement is not granted to people who are reported in the municipalities concerned in the so-called reporting centre '. The compensation under the contested provisions of the Act is therefore not for all persons who actually live or own real estate in the territory of one of the municipalities concerned, but only for those persons who had permanent residence in the territory of one of those municipalities during the relevant period (Paragraph 2 of the Act). The amount of the refund is then set at daily rates (for each calendar day of permanent residence during the so-called applicable period) of between CZK 4 and CZK 300 (§ 6 (1) to (4) of the Act) according to the municipality in which the person concerned was declared permanent residence. A one-off compensation procedure is initiated at the written request of the authorised person, with the Ministry of the Interior responsible for the procedure (Section 8 of the Act).
24. The Institute of permanent residence, which is a decisive criterion for the citizens of the Czech Republic for the granting of a claim, or for fulfilling the legal definition of a beneficiary pursuant to § 3 (3) (a) of the Act on one-off compensation, is enshrined in § 10 et seq. of Act No. 133 / 2000 Coll., on the registration of residents and birth numbers and on the amendment of certain laws (the Act on the registration of residents), as amended. The place of permanent residence is "the address of the citizen in the Czech Republic, which is kept in the basic population register in the form of a reference link (address location code) to the reference address in the basic register of territorial identification, addresses and real estate, which is usually chosen by the citizen in the place where he has a family, parent, apartment or employment '(Section 10 (1) of the citizens' register). The permanent residence is primarily registered and does not have to identify with the residence of the person as the place where the person is staying with the intention of living here. Unlike the former Act No. 135 / 1982 Coll., on the reporting and registration of citizens' residence, effective until 30 June 2000, the Act on the registration of residents does not provide for the obligation of a Czech national to apply for permanent residence. In addition, the citizen may decide to terminate permanent residence in the Czech Republic (§ 10 (12) of the Act on the registration of residents). On the other hand, however, a citizen may have only one permanent residence in an object marked with a descriptive or registered number or, where appropriate, an indicative number and intended for housing, accommodation or individual recreation (see Section 10 (1) of the Civil Records Act).
25. The permanent residence permit of foreigners is, despite its designation, a completely different institute from that of citizens. It should be noted that the permanent residence permit does not serve as permanent residence for foreigners, but is one of the types of residence permit provided for in § 87g of Act No. 326 / 1999 Coll., on the residence of foreigners in the Czech Republic and on the amendment of certain laws, as amended ("the Act on the residence of foreigners'). It is possible to identify with the Ombudsman's interpretation (see paragraph 14 above) that for foreigners residing in the Czech Republic they perform the registration function (as well as for citizens of permanent residence institutes) the so-called place of residence under § 93 of the Foreign residence law.
26. Although the One-Time Compensation Act undoubtedly affects the fiscal policy of the State, the Constitutional Court considers it necessary to emphasise that it is not the so-called tax law, as the Constitutional Court understands in its case law [see, for example, the finding of 28.6.2016 sp. zn.
27. The Constitutional Court has already ruled in the past that the granting of a lump sum is neither a fundamental freedom nor a right in itself, but "if the State has decided to pay such an amount under the conditions laid down, the same principle of non-discrimination applies here as in the case of restitution laws..." [finding of 13 December 2016 sp. zn. III. ÚS 84 / 14 (N 238 / 83 SbNU 703). Although, in general, the State may "decide to grant less benefits to one group than others, it must not proceed arbitrarily and its decision must be seen to do so in the public interest '[cf. Pl. ÚS 17 / 99 (N 174 / 16 SbNU 267; 3 / 2000 Sb.), of 9.3.2004 sp. zn. Even in the case of one-off transactions provided by the State, the examination of the scope of the Qualifying Entities also requires an assessment from the point of view of compliance with the bail-outs arising from the constitutional principle of equality, both non-accesoric (Article 1 of the Charter), i.e. resulting from the requirement to exclude arbitrage in the distinction between entities and rights, as well as in the scope of Article 3 (1) of the Charter [see mutatis mutandis the finding of 21.4.2009 sp. zn. ÚS 29 / 08 (N 89 / 53 of the SbNU 125; 181 / 2009 Coll.]]. For the sake of completeness only, the Constitutional Court states that in order to distinguish between accesoric and non-acesoric equality, it has already expressed its views in detail in the decision of 28 March 2006 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 42 / 03 (N 72 / 40 CollNU 703; 280 / 2006 Coll.), to which it refers.
28. According to the first sentence of Article 1 of the Charter, people are "free and equal in dignity and in rights." The Charter also states in Article 3 (1) that "fundamental rights and freedoms shall be guaranteed to all without distinction of sex, race, colour, language, faith and religion, political or other thinking, national or social origin, membership of a national or ethnic minority, property, genus or other status'. The list of possible grounds of discrimination is, however, a demonstration (cf. PAVlÍČEK, V. IN PAVlÍČEK, V. and the collective). Constitutional law and state. Episode II. Constitutional law of the Czech Republic. 2. updated edition. Praha: Leges, 2015, p. 506, 509). Pursuant to Article 14 of the Convention," the use of the rights and freedoms conferred by this Convention must be ensured without discrimination based on any reason such as sex, race, skin colour, language, religion, political or other sentiments, national or social origin, membership of a national minority, property, gender or other status'. It follows from the case law of the Constitutional Court that equality is a relative category to which infringements are required to be treated differently with different entities in the same or comparable situation without having objective and reasonable grounds for such an approach [finding of 15.3.2016 sp. zn. ÚS 30 / 15 (N 42 / 80 SbNU 517; 239 / 2016 Sb.)]. As a rule, the infringement of the principle of equality is based on an infringement of another fundamental right, typically the right to own property pursuant to Article 11 (1) of the Charter [cf. the findings of 7.6.1995 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 4 / 95 (N 29 / 3 SbNU 209; 168 / 1995 Coll.] and of 8.11.1995 sp. zn. ÚS 5 / 95 (N 74 / 4 SbNU 205; 6 / 1996 Sb.)]. However, the absence of a direct concern for another fundamental right or freedom does not prevent a priori from concluding a breach of the principle of equality, namely non-accesorial equality under Article 1 of the Charter.
29. The so-called "other status" within the meaning of Article 3 (1) in fine Charter and Article 14 in fine Convention as a de facto discriminatory criterion may also in some cases be a permanent residence criterion. In this context, reference can be made in particular to the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ("ECHR ') of 16 March 2010 in the Carson case and against others against the United Kingdom (complaint No 42184 / 05) concerning the issue of the impossibility of indexing pensions to British citizens living in countries with which the United Kingdom does not have a reciprocal agreement in which it also underwent permanent residence under this" other position' of the ECHR (see, in particular, paragraphs 70 and 71). In particular, in the case-law of the ECHR, the words "other status' are therefore of broad importance (see Case 2700 / 10 Kijutin v Russia, Case 2700 / 10) and its interpretation and application are not necessarily limited to personal characteristics which are congenital or indivisible [see, in addition to the above, Case 7205 / 07 Clift v United Kingdom [2010]. The Constitutional Court, in its decision of 8.8.2017 sp. zn. In a number of its decisions, the Constitutional Court found an infringement of Article 3 (1) of the Charter (i.e., Accesorial Equality), without specifically addressing whether the criterion was directly discriminatory or substitutable under the so-called other position or not (cf. BARTON, M. In HUSSEINI, F. et al., Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Comment. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2021, p. 150).
30. In order to conclude on direct discrimination, the Constitutional Court is generally based on the following test, in particular in the findings of 28.1.2014 sp. zn. Are there comparable individuals or groups? (2) Are they treated differently on any of the grounds prohibited? (3) Are they treated differently (by imposing a burden or by denying good)? (4) Is this different treatment justified, or (a) pursues legitimate interest and (b) is appropriate? The positive answer to the first three questions and the current negative answer to the fourth question then leads the Constitutional Court to a conclusion on discrimination. On the second question, however, the Constitutional Court admitted that the identification of the prohibited reason for the distinction can be omitted since in a number of cases different entities can be treated differently without the criterion of distinction and priori being defective (cf. In spite of the fact that the criterion in question is not and is not prohibited, it can still be concluded that it is incompatible with Article 3 (1) of the Charter (Case C-399 / 13 Pol. Also, according to the expert literature, "failure to fulfil the second step of the formulated test of direct discrimination (prohibited grounds of discrimination)... should not lead to the final conclusion that discrimination did not take place... The absence of a prohibited reason for differentiation... is to be an omission in the rigour of review, not a stop point for the conclusion of the absence of discrimination" (BARTON, M. In HUSSEINI, F. and Col. of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Comment. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2021, p. 156). This also corresponds in principle to the ECHR case-law, which also takes into account the degree of "suspicion 'of the reason for the difference in treatment (see, for example, Case 29865 / 96 Ünal Tekeli v Turkey [2004] ECR 29865 / 96). However, in many of the decisions of the ESLP, the reason for the difference in treatment was not explicitly recognised as discriminatory, but the ECHR found that there was a difference in treatment as a breach of non-discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention (see FOREJT, M. Judgments of the EU courts and the Council of Europe on non-discrimination matters. Pilsen: Aleš Čenek, 2013, p. 22). In addition, the Constitutional Court points out that it considers indirect discrimination to be a contradiction with Article 3 (1) of the Charter, even if it was expressed on it in a lower number of findings than in the case of direct discrimination [for example, the findings of 30 April 2009 sp. zn. II. ÚS 1609 / 08, as amended by the amending order of 9.7.2009 (N 105 / 53 SbNU 313), of 21.4.2009 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 29 / 08 (N 89 / 53 SbNU 125; 181 / 2009 Coll.) or of 12.3.2008 sp.
Application of the general bases of the constitutional review to the contested provisions
31. The Constitutional Court has reached the abstract control of the constitutionality of the contested provisions of the Law on One-off Compensation in the following conclusions, both by the provisions of the Constitutional Code and by the legal opinions expressed in its relevant findings.
32. First of all, the Constitutional Court examined whether citizens who were effectively living in the territory of one of the municipalities concerned, but who for various reasons do not have a permanent residence on its territory, could be regarded as being in a comparable position to those who lived in the municipality for the purposes of the Single Compensation Act as being resident in the municipality during the relevant period. In agreement with the Ombudsman (see paragraph 13 above), he answered this question positively.
33. The purpose and purpose of the legislation, as is clear from the explanatory memorandum to the draft law, is to compensate persons living in the territory concerned for property damage, non-property damage and to compensate for the public restriction on property rights. From this point of view (the impact of an incident on the personal and legal sphere of the individual), it is irrelevant whether the citizen lived in the village and had a permanent residence in it, or lived in it without applying for permanent residence at the same time. As explained in recital 24 above, the Constitutional Court has only a registered office in this case, which does not in itself indicate the actual residence of a person resident in that municipality who is not even legally obliged to apply for permanent residence in that municipality. Indeed, the promoter himself was aware of this and the choice of the criterion of permanent residence, despite the purpose of the legislation and its general starting points, justified "easier administration." Whether such a reason can be considered justified is subject to assessment only within the last (fourth) step of the above test (paragraph 30). However, as the appellant rightly pointed out, the rule of law works with the concept of residence. It is also possible to mention some procedural codes which determine the local jurisdiction of the court from the place where the person resides with the intention of staying permanently - see, in particular, Section 85 (1) of Act No. 99 / 1963 Coll., Civil Code, as amended, establishing the so-called general court of the participant according to his residence or where he resides (not primarily according to his place of residence). It cannot thus be argued that the criterion of permanent residence would be the only way to construct a range of beneficiaries. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the legitimate grounds for not applying for permanent residence in the municipality in which the citizen resides may be a whole range, for example if the person living in the building without a descriptive, indicative and registration number (see paragraph 24 above), if this is necessary or appropriate for the purpose of delivering and caring for a loved one, the place of employment, the place of business etc. Moreover, Section 10 (1) of the Act on the registration of residents defines the address of permanent residence as the address chosen by the citizen as a general rule (!) in the place where he has a family, parents, apartment or employment. A permanent stay can only be one (point 24 above).
34. In view of the purpose of the Single Compensation Act, foreigners living in the territory of one of the municipalities concerned and a resident in the municipality in which they live may also be considered as a comparable group. However, the legislature has chosen another (additional) criterion for foreigners in the form of a permanent residence permit, which is a type of residence permit, not a mere registration institution, which is in the case of a registered residence (see paragraph 25 above). If the person in question actually lived in the territory of one of the municipalities, its damage due to an emergency in the area of munitions warehouses is generally comparable to those who also had a permanent residence permit in the territory of the municipality.
35. The above comparable groups of persons are treated differently only because of failure to fulfil the registration criteria of permanent residence in the territory of the municipality or the absence of permanent residence permits for foreigners. Although the residence criterion is used in a number of legal acts and is not, in itself, a criterion and a priori prohibited, it may in some cases be substitutable to the concept of "other status' under Article 3 (1) of the Charter and Article 14 of the Convention (see paragraph 29 above). As the Constitutional Court has already pointed out in paragraph 27 above, if the State has decided to pay a lump sum to a group of persons under the conditions laid down, the same principle of non-discrimination as in the case of restitution laws (page III of ÚS 84 / 14) applies. Moreover, even the second sentence of Article 11 (1) of the Charter, according to which the ownership of all owners has the same legal content and protection, cannot be overlooked when a single refund is paid, including compensation for any compulsory restriction on ownership. In this context it should also be recalled that Article 11 (2) of the Charter" does not make it possible to distinguish between citizens of the Czech Republic... with permanent residence in and outside the Czech Republic '[the finding of 13.12.1995 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 8 / 95 (N 83 / 4 SbNU 279; 29 / 1996 Sb.)].
36. It should be pointed out to foreigners repeatedly that Paragraph 3 (3) (b) of the Act requires that an additional criterion, which is a permanent residence permit, be met and not a mere place of registered residence in the territory of the municipality concerned. Thus, there is only a difference in treatment based on nationality, for rights (see paragraph 22 in fine) which are guaranteed to everyone. Nor is the recovery of property which can only be owned by citizens (see Article 11 (2) of the Charter, which is a special provision on the constitutional principle of equality), since pari passu is not applicable to the conclusions reached by the Constitutional Court on 4 June 1997 sp. zl. ÚS 33 / 96 (N 67 / 8 SbNU 163; 185 / 1997 Coll.). In other words, Article 11 (2) of the Charter here (as opposed to the restitution legislature) does not create a constitutional space for limiting the circle of beneficiaries.
37. The different treatment of persons effectively living in the territory of the municipality without applying for permanent residence or permanent residence permits results in them not being entitled to one-off compensation for non-compliance with a requirement arising out of the legal definition of the beneficiary [§ 3 (3) and § 6 (5) of the Act]. They are thus prevented from the "preferential 'scheme for the granting of compensation (injury) and compensation for other public-law restrictions on ownership in the form of a one-off compensation by the so-called daily rate (see paragraph 23 in fine above). If these persons wish to obtain compensation for damage (damage) or compensation for the restriction of property rights, they will have to comply with the general legislation (see paragraph 22 above), with all the consequences resulting therefrom, such as proving maladministration, damage (damage), which may be particularly problematic in the case of damage to property, the degree and manner of limitation of property rights to land, etc. The Constitutional Court therefore answered positively the third question of the above-mentioned test and therefore concluded that the above-mentioned differential treatment is liable to the defined groups of persons.
38. Finally, the Constitutional Court examined whether this difference in treatment was justified, namely whether it was pursuing a legitimate interest and, if so, whether it was appropriate. However, the Constitutional Court did not find this difference in treatment justified or legitimate.
39. The legislator must always "ensure that the favourable approach is based on objective and reasonable grounds (legitimate objective of the legislator) and that there is a relationship of proportionality between that objective and the means for achieving it (legal advantage) '[the finding of 21.1.2003 sp. zn. Similarly, the ECHR points out in its case-law that" the difference in the treatment of persons in relatively similar situations... is discriminatory unless there is objective and reasonable justification, in other words, in the absence of a legitimate objective or a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the resources used and the objective pursued' (judgment of the Grand Chamber of 29 April 2008 in Case No 13378 / 05 Burden v United Kingdom). It can be concluded from the explanatory memorandum (see paragraph 23 above) that the treatment of comparable population groups on the basis of permanent residence has been chosen because "permanent residence can be most easily verified without the need to burden applicants... It is so difficult to prove a real residence." The Constitutional Court agrees with the Ombudsman's argument that the interest in "more comfortable 'processing of applications must not outweigh the constitutional prohibition of discrimination, or that it is not a sufficiently legitimate objective to justify the different treatment of claims for damages (harm) or compensation for the restriction of property rights.
40. The procedure for the application for a one-off compensation pursuant to the Law on One-off Compensation is an administrative procedure governed by the general principles of administrative activity provided for in Sections 2 to 8 of Act No. 500 / 2004 Coll., the Administrative Code, as amended, including the principle of proportionality, material truth, procedural equality of the persons concerned, the cooperation of administrative authorities and the principle of access by the administrative authority to the person concerned. In the light of the principles of administrative procedure, the principle of disposition and the principle of inquiry in relation to the above principle of material truth should be highlighted in the present case. However, the principle of investigation is somewhat suppressed in the application procedure (modified), since the applicant has to submit certain supporting documents or evidence for his application, and it is the applicant who bears the objective burden of proof [cf. GRYGAR, T. In FRUMAR, K., GRYGAR, T., PUPER, O., SCHUREK, M. Administrative law of procedure. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2021, p. 44 (marg. 179)]. In other words, if the administrative procedure for the application did not prove, or despite duly established evidence, that the applicant had lived in the territory of one of the municipalities concerned during the relevant period, this would lead to the rejection of his application, i.e. the refusal of entitlement. In particular, if, in the end, it is the applicant who has had an objective burden of proof to prove the conditions for entitlement, it cannot be said that the choice of the criterion of effective residence for the State would be disproportionately complex. Indeed, as has already been pointed out above, many other legislation with the criterion (de facto) of residence works. However, the contested provisions of the One-off Compensation Act do not allow the applicant, who actually lives and owns the property, for example, in the territory of the municipality, to prove these facts, since the right to compensation belongs only to persons with permanent residence in the municipality, whether or not they live in the municipality or own real estate which was affected by an exceptional event and subsequent liquidation work.
41. In the light of the objective pursued, as well as the purpose of the Institute of Compensation and Compensation for the Limitation of Owning Rights, it cannot be considered legitimate either that the compensation is granted under the contested provisions of the Law to those persons who, although they had permanent residence in the territory of one of the municipalities (the registration criterion) but did not even have any land or construction in the municipality, so that the damage could not have arisen to them, whereas persons who were actually living in the territory of the municipality (but who did not have permanent residence in it). It cannot be noted that, in addition to the initial possibility of establishing a permanent residence criterion (really easily identifiable from the population records), the legislature offered to establish additional or alternative criteria in the form of proof of residence in the municipality or property ownership in such a way as to avoid unjustified disadvantages for persons actually affected by an exceptional event. However, he did not do so without justifiable reasons.
42. The Constitutional Court also notes, and in particular the Senate's observations, that the legislator was aware of some of the above shortcomings of the contested legislation. To put it simply, however, he preferred the method 'rather quickly' and 'rather something than nothing'. However, even these facts cannot justify the constitutional shortcomings of the contested regulation. In addition to the proposal, the observations of the chambers of Parliament and the Ombudsman and of paragraph 18, the Constitutional Court also notes that, on the basis of the resolution of the Assembly of Deputies No 168, the Parliamentary Institute has drawn up an opinion on the draft law or information on the compatibility of the proposal with Union law (publicly available at www.pspp.cz as a document to Parliament's press 1250 / 0). It concludes that "for foreigners, the conditions for obtaining the status of authorised person are set more strictly than for citizens of the Czech Republic, which is particularly problematic in terms of EU law in relation to EU citizens, as the proposed text is discriminatory towards foreigners. The prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of nationality is one of the fundamental principles of EU law (see Article 18 TFEU)," whereas the proposed regulation is partly incompatible with EU law. "In addition, the Constitutional Court states that the link of one-off compensation under the contested provisions of the Act to permanent residence permits for foreigners does not conflict with the condition of continuous legal residence for five years for citizens of the European Union and their family members, no longer being nationals of any Member State of the European Union, which establishes the right of permanent residence of such persons in the host Member State pursuant to Article 16 of 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 / 68 / EEC and repealing Directives 64 / 221 / EEC, 68 / 360 / EEC (hereinafter referred to as" Directive '), and has a substantive nature. Therefore, the removal of the permanent residence requirement from the contested provisions of the Act will not affect the obligations of the Czech Republic under this Directive of Union law. In addition, the material of one-off compensation to the operators concerned by the exceptional occurrence is not covered by European Union law and is therefore not subject to its control mechanisms.
43. The Constitutional Court therefore summarises that the provisions of § 3 (3) (a) in the words "permanent residence," § 3 (3) (b), § 6 (1) in the words "permanent" and "permanent," § 6 (2) in the word "permanent," § 6 (3) in the word "permanent," and § 6 (4) in the words "permanent" of one-off compensation are contradictory to the principle of equality and discrimination already under the general provisions of Article 1 of the first sentence of the First Charter guaranteeing the equality of all people in law.
44. By abolishing the above provisions or their individual words, the requirement of permanent residence for the granting of a lump-sum indemnity is thus removed, with the relevant criterion being the aspect (actual) of the stay in the territory of one of the municipalities concerned (Section 3 (2) of the Law) within the specified period. The Constitutional Court observes that, to that effect, it will also be necessary to interpret Article 3 (3) (a) of the Act, which, in the wording of this finding (by deleting the words "applied for permanent residence '), provides that the entitled person is" a natural person who was in the municipality referred to in paragraph 2' during the relevant period. Although the Constitutional Court is aware of the possible linguistic (grammatical) ambiguity or ambiguity of this provision of the law as amended by the finding, it notes that it is only responsible for the status of so-called negative legislator, which is why the legal provision itself cannot be supplemented by other words or, in its view, to be "more appropriate '. The above-mentioned legal standard defining a legitimate natural person as being" in the relevant period in the municipality...' will have to be interpreted in the light of the very basis of the law, its meaning and the purpose of compensation for persons affected by an exceptional occurrence (teleological interpretation), as well as in relation to other legal provisions, in particular Article 6 (1) to (4), which refers to "residence 'of the beneficiary (systematic interpretation). Thus, the person entitled under Article 3 (3) (a) will be the person who had" residence' in the territory of the municipality concerned during the relevant period of his residence.
45. Paragraph 6 (5) of the Act, which was also challenged by the appellant, then provides that "the beneficiary is not entitled to a one-off compensation for the part of the period in question when the place of residence of the applicant was the registered office of the applicant." This provision clearly follows the provisions of the law (parts thereof) as set out in the preceding paragraph. As the condition of permanent residence in the territory of one of the municipalities concerned is abolished, it also loses the normative importance of the subsequent Section 6 (5) of the Act, which the Constitutional Court also annulled in accordance with the draft petition.
Conclusion
46. For the reasons set out above, the Constitutional Court decided, in accordance with § 70 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No 48 / 2002 Coll., that the application had fully complied with and annulled § 3 (3) (a) in the words "permanent residence ', § 3 (3) (b), § 6 (1) in the words" permanent' and "permanent ', § 6 (2) in the word" permanent', § 6 (3) in the word "permanent ', § 6 (4) in the words" permanent' and Article 6 (5) in the words "permanent 'and" permanent', Article 6 (5) of the Act No 324 / 2021 Coll, on the one-off compensation of entities affected by an exceptional occurrence in the area of the munitions stores of Vlačevichovíce and amending certain laws, and on the expiry of that decision.
47. On the application for a preliminary ruling on grounds of urgency, the Constitutional Court states that it has effectively complied with it, since it decided on the application for the annulment of the contested provisions of the law without delay after the time limits laid down in Paragraph 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended, which it had to provide to another party, the Government and the Ombudsman, or after having received the Ombudsman's observations on the application. The Constitutional Court took this approach because, pursuant to Article 7 of the Law, the claim must be exercised within a substantive, pre-compulsory period until 30 June 2022.
48. Pursuant to Article 58 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the findings by which the Constitutional Court decided on an application for annulment of a law or other legislation or their individual provisions pursuant to Article 87 (1) (a) and (b) of the Constitution are enforceable on the date of their publication in the Collection of Laws, unless the Constitutional Court decides otherwise (Article 89 (1) of the Constitution). In the present case, the Constitutional Court held that the finding was enforceable by the end of the date of its publication, since it took into account in particular that the right to one-off compensation must be exercised by 30 June 2022 (Section 7 of the One-off Compensation Act). In addition, the application for annulment of the contested provisions of the law was lodged only on 6 April 2022, and although the Constitutional Court considered the case to be extremely urgent, an earlier decision in a case which would, if necessary, allow the usual determination of the enforceability of the finding to be made by its publication in the Collection of Laws, was not possible in view of the need for compliance with the time limits set out in the preceding paragraph, as well as the procedural rights of the other party and intervener. Paragraph 10 (2) of Act No. 309 / 1999 Coll., on the Collection of Laws and on the Collection of International Contracts, then it follows that this derogatory finding would have to be published in the Collection of Laws without delay, but not later than 30 days after its delivery to the Ministry of Interior. It is precisely as a result of this deadline that it may not be guaranteed that the finding will be published in the Collection of Laws before the expiry of the time limit laid down in Section 7 of the One-off Compensation Act, which the petitioner is not making any progress in petiting. On the contrary, by establishing the enforceability of the derogatory finding by the expiry of the date of its publication and not by publication in the Collection of Laws [to this effect, the finding of 22.6.2005 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 13 / 05 (N 127 / 37 SbNU 593; 283 / 2005 Coll.) and of 10.9.2009 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 27 / 09 (N 199 / 54 SbNU 445; 318 / 2009 Sb.)), persons residing in the territory of the municipalities concerned will be allowed to claim a single compensation, at least a so-called blank application, to which will be subsequently called for in the administrative procedure by the Ministry of the Interior. Like the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court has already stated in the finding that the Pl. ÚS 8 / 95 is already in a situation where the legislator expects the legislature to bring the legislation into place itself so that a new period of time for the exercise, if necessary, of a claim of such length as is appropriate to the current situation of "newly authorised persons'.
49. For the sake of completeness, the Constitutional Court notes that this finding will in no way affect persons who have already been entitled to one-off compensation under the repealed provisions based solely on the criterion of permanent residence as evidence by administrative decision. The Constitutional Court finds that only ex nunc (for futuro) is effective, and that under Article 71 (2) and (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, final decisions made pursuant to the provisions of the law which have been repealed remain unaffected; However, the rights and obligations under such decisions may not be exercised. Therefore, in general terms, an administrative decision to which a person has been entitled on the basis of the later Constitutional Court (in part) of the repealed provisions cannot be annulled in the review procedure under Title IX of the Administrative Regulation, since the legality (law) of the Administrative Decision must also be assessed in the review procedure by the primacy of the facts and legal situation at the date of its publication and the principle of the protection of legal certainty and the good faith of the addressees of the Administrative Decision [cf. FRUMAROVÁ, K., GRYGAR, T., POPER, O., SCHUREK, M. Administrative Law of Procedure must also be taken into account. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2021, p. 32 (marg. 117) a., p. 348 (marg. 1223)]. Moreover, the review procedure does not allow a one-off compensation law in the third sentence of Paragraph 9 (4), with the exception of the procedure laid down in Section 153 (1) (a) of the Administrative Regulation which allows the applicant to be satisfied by modification or withdrawal of the decision in the review procedure. In the present case, neither the conditions for the adoption of the so-called new decision (Section 101 of the Administrative Regulation) nor the renewal of the procedure (Section 100 of the Administrative Regulation) will be met, which is also not permitted by the Law on one-off compensation (Section 9 (4), second sentence).
President of the Constitutional Court:
v. JUDr. Tomková v. r.
Vice-President
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No 183 / 2022 Coll., on the application for annulment of certain provisions of Act No. 324 / 2021 Coll., on a one-off compensation of entities affected by an exceptional occurrence in the area of the munitions warehouses of Vřechovice and on the amendment of certain laws |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 30.06.2022 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
Legal Areas:
Criminal law
Criminal law
Public Contracts 2
Smlouva o zřízení věcného břemene - služebnosti práva užívání a stezky
Plzeňské městské dopravní podniky, a.s.
Oldřich Matějček, nar. 1954, Hana Matějčková, nar....
24 200 CZK
26.11.2025
Notifications
Smlouva o zřízení věcného břemene-služebnosti práva užívání a cesty
Plzeňské městské dopravní podniky, a.s.
Oldřich Matějček, Hana Matějčková
24 200 CZK
28.07.2025
Notifications
Source:
Hlídač státu
(CC BY 3.0 CZ)
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0