Found at the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic No. 2 / 1997 Coll.

Paragraph 5 (5) of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., on non-judicial rehabilitation, as amended, is deleted from the section mentioned after the last major comma, which reads "within one year of the effective date of the Act ', from the date of the declaration of the finding in the Collection of Laws.

The appellants submitted with reference to the provisions of § 74 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, together with a constitutional complaint against the judgment of the Regional Court in Pilsen of 2 May 1996 No 12 Co 199 / 96-76 for the initiation of proceedings pursuant to § 64 (1) (d) of the Act cited. Their proposal to repeal the provisions of Article 5 (5) of Act No 87 / 1991 Coll., on extrajudicial rehabilitation, in the part mentioned after the last major comma, which is "within one year of the effective date of the Act ', justifies its contradiction with Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (" the Charter'), guaranteeing equality in rights, since it creates a de facto inequality of beneficiaries and allows the same rights of beneficiaries to be met differently. In the opinion of the draftsmen, the law now takes the form of a detachable logical sense. It formally puts all the beneficiaries at the same level and also contains specific provisions on the right of those entitled persons who have claimed their claims later to seek the issue of part of the case against those who have already been issued in the meantime. However, in the case of persons authorised in the light of a constitutional finding published under No. 164 / 1994 Coll., this provision cannot be successfully applied, since in their case the period granted by law ended before they even started running. The current text of the law also calls into question the very meaning of the law on out-of-court rehabilitation, as it leads to double the correction of injustices. Once in nature, and for the second time in compensation granted by the State to those entitled persons to whom the property cannot actually be issued. This would be detrimental to the state and citizens as taxpayers.

The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, in its observations of 22 October 1996 signed by its President, Mr Miloš Zeman, stated that the compliance of the legal solution with the constitutional guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms must be assessed in particular in the light of the period in which the law was adopted. The legislature acted in the belief that Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. was adopted in accordance with the Constitution and our rule of law and it is up to the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of the Act and to give its decision.

From the file Pl. ÚS 3 / 94 The Constitutional Court found that Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. was approved by the necessary majority of Members of the Federal Assembly on 21 March 1991, signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and duly declared. The law cited, the contested provision of which was not amended by Paragraph 5 (5), was therefore adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution established competence and in a constitutional manner (Section 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll.).

From the finding of full court of 12 July 1994 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 3 / 94 (No 164 / 1994 Coll.) The Constitutional Court found that on 1 November 1994 it had abolished

1. in the provisions of § 3 (1) of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., on extrajudicial rehabilitation, as amended by the laws amending it and supplementing it, part of the sentence after (second) comma in the words "has permanent residence in its territory" and in the provisions of § 3 (4) of the same Act, as amended by the laws amending it and supplementing it (before the application of Act No. 116 / 1994 Coll. designated as paragraph 2), part of the sentence in the words "have permanent residence in its territory,"

2. in the provisions of Sections 5 (2) and 4 of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., on extrajudicial rehabilitation, as amended by the laws amending it and supplementing it, the words "from the date of application of this Act."

The Constitutional Court's finding is therefore without prejudice to the provisions of § 5 (5) of Act No 87 / 1991 Coll., according to which, if the case was issued, persons whose claims applied within the time limit referred to in paragraph 2 have not been met may claim those claims before the court against the persons to whom the case was issued within one year of the date of application of that law. In this way, the situation has arisen that persons to whom the Constitutional Court has been found to have the status of authorised persons can no longer claim their claim under the provisions of Section 5 (5) of the Act, whether against the obliged persons under the provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Act or in the court against the persons to whom the case was issued (Section 5 (5) of the Act). In other words, the extension of the range of persons entitled to seek extradition pursuant to the provisions of § 5 (5) of Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. did not change the discrimination against those persons whose claim could no longer be satisfied due to the time limits set out in the provision cited.

As regards the question of the annulment of that deadline in the present case, the Constitutional Court adhered to the arguments contained in the decision of the Constitutional Court of 13 December 1995, sp. zn. As stated in this finding, "if the existence of a right is linked to a time limit, if it is established that the right has been restricted in an unconstitutional manner, it is also necessary to remove an obstacle which would impede its constitutional application '. In this context, however, the Constitutional Court considers it necessary to address the so-called law and also the question of retroactivity. This is because the persons to whom the case was issued are not identical to the obliged persons pursuant to § 4 of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., since they are in fact beneficiaries whose claims have already been met. The Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., as amended, therefore provided for the possibility of a conflict of interests between the interests of several beneficiaries, the substance of which is that only some of the persons authorised under the Act will be satisfied, while others will not be satisfied. This conflict between constitutionally guaranteed equality and the fact that the matter has already been issued by one of the beneficiaries is dealt with by this law by expressly establishing the right of unsatisfied beneficiaries to claim their claims against the satisfied beneficiaries in court within a one-year period. Also satisfied beneficiaries find themselves in the process of applying that law completely irrevocably in the expectation that, in the event of that collision, they will be exposed to an obvious risk of reducing the extent of their already satisfied claim. In the view of the Constitutional Court, the fact that the legislature deliberately exposed the satisfied beneficiaries to this risk is entirely appropriate, as it does so in full compliance with the purpose of the law, to monitor the mitigation of the consequences of property and other injustices from 1948 to 1989, and the tendency to give passage to the constitutional principle of equality and to enable all the entitled persons to satisfy their claims to the extent that they are legally entitled to, regardless of the fact that some of them have already been issued. The purpose and tendencies of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., as amended, constitute such significant dominance that, in their light of the allegation of acquired rights or principles of retroactivity, given the already mentioned positions of expectations of satisfied beneficiaries, exposed to the legal risk of conflict with the interests of unsatisfied beneficiaries, it appears impossible. If, in this context, so-called acquired rights can be considered at all, since, in terms of their rights, they are more of a newly established one, since they are mainly based on other substantive legislation, then there is probably an argument that already at the time of their constitution they had the rights of those entitled persons because of the possibility of a legally foreseen conflict with the interests of other entitled persons" risk' subtext, in other words, these beneficiaries had to necessarily assume the consequences set out in Article 5 (5) of the Law. Therefore, the objection to retroactive activity will not stand, as the claims of satisfied beneficiaries in the existence of the provision cited in Section 5 (5) of the Act have been granted "assistance 'under the legal conditions that the extent of the satisfaction of these claims will be reduced in the event of their collision with those of unsatisfied beneficiaries.

The Constitutional Court therefore considers that the application for annulment of Article 5 (5) of Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. in the part mentioned after the last major point, which is "within one year of the date of application of that law ', is justified for the alleged contradiction with Article 1 of the Charter guaranteeing equality in rights. In the view of the Constitutional Court, however, the proposal is justified also for the contradiction with Article 1 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, which declares the Czech Republic to be a rule of law based on respect for the rights and freedoms of man, Article 3 (1) of the Charter prohibiting discrimination in the field of fundamental rights and freedoms, Article 4 (2) of the Charter establishing the principle that, under the conditions laid down by the Charter, the limits of fundamental rights and freedoms may be adjusted only by law, with Article 4 (3) of the Charter determining that the legal restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms must apply equally to all cases satisfying the conditions laid down, as well as well as for other reasons stated in the Constitutional Court of First Instance.

For all the reasons set out above, the Constitutional Court complied with the application and the provisions of Article 5 (5) of Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. in the section mentioned after the last major comma, which reads "within one year from the date of application of the Act ', in accordance with the provisions of Article 70 (1) of Law No 182 / 1993 Coll., was annulled by the date of publication of the decision in the Collection of Laws.

By cancelling the already stated part of the provision of § 5 (5) of Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. with the unsatisfied beneficiaries, it opens the way for the claim enshrined in that provision. It is for the legislator to put the legislation in such a way that it is evident that only those persons who have not yet been able to exercise that right have been able to do so, to set a new time limit for this finding and to deal with the situations that arise as a result of the fact that, in the meantime since the issue of the case until now, the case has already been transferred or transferred to other persons.

The right to give a different opinion on the finding in the minutes of the hearing and its connection to the decision, stating its name under Section 14 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, was used by the judges of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic JUDr. Zdeněk Kessler, JUDr. Vladimir Paul, JUDr. Vlastimil Ševčík and JUDr. Pavel Varvařovský.