Communication from the Constitutional Court No 21 / 2026 Coll.
Communication from the Constitutional Court on the adoption of the Opinion of the Plenary Pl. ÚS- st. 62 / 25 on a municipal constitutional complaint as a means of protecting the right to self-administration
Valid
Communication from the Constitutional Court
Text versions:
18.02.2026
21
Communication
The Constitutional Court
of 17 December 2025
on the adoption of the opinion of plenary sp. zn.
Plenum of the Constitutional Court composed of the President of the Court of Josef Baxy and the judges of Lucie Dolanská Bányai, Milan Hulmák, Veronica Christian, Zdeňka Kühn, Tomáš Langášek, Jiří Pribán, Dita Řepková, Martin Smolk, Jan Svatona, Pavel Šámal, Jan Winter (Judge of the Rapporteur) and Daniela Zeman adopted on 17 December 2025 under sp. zn. Pl. ÚSíS. 62 / 25 on a proposal from the First Chamber of the Constitutional Court under Article 23 of Law No 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, on the subject of its legal opinion on proceedings under sp.
the following opinion:
I. For the protection of the right to self-administration, the proceedings on municipal constitutional complaints pursuant to Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic and Article 72 (1) (b) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court are used. The right to self-administration is not a fundamental right or freedom within the meaning of Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic.
II. Only the council of the municipality or region has the active legitimacy to file a municipal complaint. The condition for the assessment of such a complaint is proof that the Council of Ministers, within the legal period laid down by the resolution, has shown its willingness to lodge a communal complaint.
Reasons
Brief definition of the substance of the opinion
1. In this opinion, the Committee of the Constitutional Court examines the conditions governing the eligibility of municipalities (and local authorities in general) as applicants for the submission of:
(a) so-called municipal constitutional complaints pursuant to Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic and Article 72 (1) (b) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court; and
(b) constitutional complaints under Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (a) of the Law on the Constitutional Court (i.e. constitutional complaints "general") in the event that they object to a breach of their right to self-administration.
2. It concluded that the proceedings for municipal constitutional complaints under Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (b) of the Law on the Constitutional Court were used to protect the right to self-administration. The right to self-administration is not a fundamental right or freedom within the meaning of Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution. Only the council of the municipality or region has an active ID to file a municipal complaint. The condition for the assessment of such a complaint is proof that the Council of Ministers, within the legal period laid down by the resolution, has shown its willingness to lodge a communal complaint.
Reasons for bringing a case for an opinion
3. The First Chamber, in proceedings under page I. ÚS 1259 / 25, assesses the constitutional complaint of the city of Zlín. In the proceedings prior to the complaint, the Regional Court decided, on a proposal from the interveners, to abolish part of the amendment to the Zlín city zoning plan. The Regional Court has testified to the objections of the interveners that the contested part of the change in the zoning plan is illegal, since the City of Zlín, by changing the zoning plan, has very intensively intervened in the ownership of the interveners without submitting and demonstrating the reasons behind the legal objectives. The Supreme Administrative Court then rejected the city's appeal.
4. The City of Zlin subsequently lodged a so-called municipal constitutional complaint pursuant to Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (b) of the Law on the Constitutional Court. He contends that the administrative courts illegally intervened in his constitutionally guaranteed right to self-administration. At the same time, it states that if the Constitutional Court were to conclude that the City of Zlín had no active legitimacy to lodge a municipal constitutional complaint, it should consider it as a general constitutional complaint under Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (a) of the Constitutional Court Act.
5. When examining the fulfilment of the procedural conditions of the procedure, the Judge-Rapporteur concluded that only the representative has the active legitimacy to lodge a constitutional complaint under Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution. The complainant at the invitation of the Constitutional Court to submit a resolution of the Council of Ministers showing the willingness of the Council of the Municipality to lodge a complaint, stating that it does not have such a resolution of the Board of Appeal and asking the Constitutional Court to consider the constitutional complaint as a general constitutional complaint under Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (a) of the Constitutional Court Act. It pointed out that, according to the case law of the Constitutional Court, the municipality may also object to the infringement of the right to self-government in a general constitutional complaint.
6. However, the Judge-Rapporteur and, consequently, the First Chamber concluded that the complainant was manifestly an unjustified appellant within the meaning of Article 43 (1) (c) of the Constitutional Court Act, since he lacked active legitimacy both to lodge a municipal constitutional complaint and to lodge a general constitutional complaint. Only the municipality's representative [§ 72 (1) (b) of the Law on the Constitutional Court] may lodge a complaint, the complainant's will to file such a complaint. A general constitutional complaint may then be lodged only by the rightholder of fundamental rights and freedoms, who will object to a breach of one of the fundamental rights and freedoms (see Opinion sp. zl. However, the complainant is a city which objects to a breach of the right to self-administration without contesting a breach of the fundamental right or freedom.
7. If the municipality acts as a public authority (in a supreme position), the holder of fundamental rights and freedoms may not be [cf. Resolution sp. zn. II. ÚS 2264 / 10 of 9.9.2010, III. ÚS 3108 / 09 of 18.3.2010, IV. ÚS 1201 / 11 of 16.5.2011, IV. ÚS 1529 / 12 of 29.5.2012 (U 4 / 65 SbNU 675) and II. ÚS 1226 / 20 of 21.5.2020]. It may only be a holder of the right to self-administration, but under the first Chamber, a communal complaint under Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (b) of the Constitutional Court Act is used to protect it.
8. However, such a legal opinion is contrary to the legal opinion expressed in the judgment in Case 178 / 15 of 8.11.2018 (N 179 / 91 SbNU 225), in which the Constitutional Court dealt with a general complaint from the municipality against the regional planning documents. Point 17 of that finding explicitly states that violations of the right to self-administration can be objected to both in the communal complaint and in the general constitutional complaint.
9. At the same time, the Constitutional Court has already ruled in many of the findings that the decision of the Administrative Court on the abolition of the zoning plan or part of the zoning plan is an intervention in the municipality's right to self-administration [the findings of the Sf. zn. IV. ÚS 938 / 22 of 18.8.2023 (N 119 / 119 SbNU 121), paragraph 18; III. ÚS 709 / 19 of 12.5.2020 (N 90 / 100 SbNU 87), paragraph 23; III. ÚS 3817 of 14.5.2019 as amended by the amending order of 23.5.2019 (N 78 / 94 SbNU 73), paragraph 21; I. ÚS 655 / 17 of 9.11.2017 (N 207 / 87 SbNU 377), paragraph 51].
10. However, if the abolition of the zoning plan is an intervention in the right of the municipality to self-administration and the municipality can also claim that right in the proceedings for a general constitutional complaint, according to the First Chamber, a constitutional complaint cannot be rejected as a proposal made by someone manifestly unauthorized. According to the first Chamber, however, it follows from the wording, the scheme and the meaning of the legislation as interpreted by the other case law of the Constitutional Court that the City of Zlín's proposal in the present proceedings is manifestly unjustified.
11. The first Chamber therefore referred this question to the plenary in accordance with Article 23 of the Constitutional Court Act.
The Constitutional Court's current decision-making practice
12. The Constitutional Court first expressed its opinion in its Opinion, sp. zn. Pl. ÚS-st. 9 / 99, on the nature of the active legitimacy to file a general constitutional complaint in the context of a complaint from an administrative authority whose decision was challenged by an administrative action. It stated that "the definition of a constitutional complaint under Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution, as well as Article 72 (1) (a) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, is the intervention of a public authority in the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms. As a result of the active legitimacy to file a constitutional complaint, only the entity (natural and legal person) who has the capacity to be a bearer of fundamental rights and freedoms is so authorised."
13. The Constitutional Court then referred this opinion to the constitutional complaints of the local authorities which contested the infringement of the right to self-administration pursuant to Article 100 (1) of the Constitution. In resolution sp. zn. II. ÚS 2264 / 10 rejected the constitutional complaint of the municipality which defended the general constitutional complaint against the decision of the administrative courts to abolish a measure of a general nature. The Constitutional Court stated: "Paragraph 72 (1) (a) sets out in an exhaustive manner the range of persons entitled to lodge a constitutional complaint. Therefore, the definition of a constitutional complaint is, according to the provisions cited above, the intervention of a public authority in the constitutional order of guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms, and only the entity which has the capacity to be a bearer of fundamental rights and freedoms is entitled to lodge a constitutional complaint. If a person acts as a public authority, he does not have such personality. The opposite approach would mean denying the meaning of fundamental rights and freedoms and the fundamental difference between subjective rights and powers... The complainant, as a public-law corporation of the local authorities (municipality), was empowered, within its own jurisdiction, to decide authoritatively (i.e. in a supreme position) on the rights and obligations of entities which are not in an equal position with him in such cases. Such a complainant's decision does not depend on the will of the addressees. Although it is a decision of the municipal government, not of the state administration, they do not lose their supreme character, which is justified by the content of those acts issued for the purpose of carrying out public tasks. In such cases, the complainant is thus entitled to a supreme position (right to decide). 'With this argument, the Constitutional Court subsequently also held that the municipality, acting as a public authority, was not a bearer of any fundamental rights or freedoms. He stated:" If the complainant is in a petition for a constitutional complaint to declare a breach, the fundamental rights' guaranteed by Articles 1 (1) and 101 (3) and (4) of the Constitution and Article 4 (4) of the Charter, it should be noted that these constitutional provisions do not contain any fundamental rights. In the case of constitutional provisions, however, it is an institutional guarantee of territorial government... Protection of the right to self-government, which guarantees the Constitution as an objective constitutional right in those articles, can only be procured through the so-called communal complaint foreseen by Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution, with the Constitutional Court Act in § 72 (1) (b) providing only the municipality's representative or the local authority, which the complainant is not... "
14. This legal opinion was also applied by the Constitutional Court in the resolutions sp. zn. III. ÚS 3108 / 09, IV. ÚS 1201 / 11, IV. ÚS 1529 / 12 and II. ÚS 1226 / 20.
15. In several findings, the Constitutional Court was also more generally concerned with the nature of the municipal constitutional complaint. In the decision in sp. zn. II. ÚS 2200 / 15 of 22.11.2016 (N 217 / 83 SbNU 421), paragraph 14, he stated: "[P] the draft contains a specific type of proposal, enshrined in Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (b) of the Constitutional Court Act and referred to as the so-called communal constitutional complaint (Kommunalbeschwerde). This type of procedure differs in several ways from the modification, the general constitutional complaint referred to in Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution, inter alia, in that, while in proceedings for a general constitutional complaint, the Constitutional Court examines the breach of the constitutional fundamental rights or freedoms of the complainant, in the case of a so-called communal constitutional complaint, the Constitutional Court reviews not only the breach of the constitutionally guaranteed right to local authorities (Article 8 of the Constitution) but also the legality of such interference within the meaning of Article 101 (4) of the Constitution, thereby reducing the review threshold. '
16. In several findings, the Constitutional Court also pointed out that, although they bear the right to self-administration of the local authorities (municipalities and counties), the active legitimacy to lodge a municipal constitutional complaint under Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 72 (1) (b) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, is the municipality's representative. Therefore, a statement from the council resolution showing the council's will to lodge such a constitutional complaint is an essential annex to the submission of a municipal constitutional complaint (e.g. the findings of the sp. zn. IV. ÚS 938 / 22, paragraph 17, III. ÚS 709 / 19, paragraphs 20 to 21; resolution sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 15 / 20 of 5.5.2020, paragraph 15). Failure of the council to submit a constitutional complaint leads to the rejection of the proposal as being made by someone manifestly unauthorized (see, for example, resolution sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 15 / 20, paragraph 15; and II. ÚS 3554 / 12 of 7.2.2013).
17. The Constitutional Court then defined the general principles concerning the intervention in the right to self-administration and the possibility of judicial protection of the State: "The alleged unlawful interference of the State in the right to self-administration may be any act of a State authority which infringes this constitutionally guaranteed right (here the exercise of the separate jurisdiction of the municipality), that is to say, by law the intervention in the form of a decision or measure (Article 101 (4) of the Constitution) to exercise supervision over the decentralised exercise of public authority... This may also be the decision of the administrative court... including where, as a result of the administrative procedure and the subsequent procedure of the administrative courts, a part of the territorial plan whose approval falls within the jurisdiction of the municipalities... 22. In order to be required to use up all the remedies, it should be noted that there is no other procedural means in the legal system by which the complainant could seek the annulment of the alleged unlawful interference in the right of self-administration consisting of decisions of administrative courts... 24. From Articles 8 and 100 (1) of the Constitution and Article 36 (2) The Charter is introduced that the right of the local authorities to exercise their right to self-government is the constitutional right of the respective territorial community of citizens to take decisions on their own responsibility and at the same time the public interest (outside the instructions and guidelines) within the decentralised autonomous areas defined by the constitutional order and the laws on their matters within their territory and for their decisions to be liable to public liability... The State may, in conjunction with Article 78, Article 79 (1) and (3), Article 91 (2) of the Constitution, where the law is infringed by the law on its own resources, and in a manner which is guaranteed judicial protection under Article 36 (3) in conjunction with Article 78, Article 79 (3, Article 91 (2), Article 91 (2) of the Constitution, and Article 91 (2), Article 91 (2), Article 91 (2) of the Constitution, Article 36 (1) of the Constitution, and Article 36 (1) of the Constitution, Article 36 (1) of the Constitution, Article 36 (1 of the Act."
18. The conclusion that the intervention in the municipality's right to self-administration may be a decision by the administrative court on the abolition of the zoning plan or part thereof, the Constitutional Court repeated in several other findings (the findings in point IV of the ÚS 938 / 22, paragraph 18; III ÚS 709 / 19, paragraph 23; I. ÚS 655 / 17, paragraph 51).
19. I. ÚS 178 / 15 The Constitutional Court rejected the general constitutional complaint of the municipality of Nové Høminov, which sought the annulment of part of the Territorial Development Policy of the Moravian-Silesian Region because of a breach of the right to judicial protection, the right to own property and the right to self-administration. He dealt with the active legitimacy of the municipality and said: "17. Thus, a communal complaint is a special procedural means of protecting the right to self-government, which allows the Constitutional Court to review not only from the point of view of the constitutionality of the contested acts but also from the point of view of their legality. However, the Constitutional Court's decision-making practice has developed in the sense that the constitutional right to self-administration can be objected to both in the communal complaint and in the general constitutional complaint [FTC 2574 / 14 of 25.8.2015 (N 155 / 78 SbNU 343) and in the FTC 2200 / 15 of 22.11.2016 (N 217 / 83 SbNU 421)]. The procedure of the Constitutional Court depends primarily on the appellant and the nature of the objections raised. In the present case, the Constitutional Court did not find the fundamental reasons for which it should depart from this practice, so it considered the complainant's objections as objections to the general constitutional complaint. '
20. As regards the findings referred to in point 17 of the judgment in paragraph 1 (i) of the ÚS 178 / 15, of which the Constitutional Court followed that caselaw, the following must be stated. Although the Constitutional Court has found a breach of the right to self-administration, the finding of sp. zn. II. ÚS 2200 / 15 is based on a municipal constitutional complaint, not a general constitutional complaint (see point 14 of the judgment of sp. zn. II. ÚS 2200 / 15). In the second referred finding sp. zn. I. ÚS 2574 / 14, the Constitutional Court then found infringement of the right of the city of Frenštát under Radhošt to self-administration in conjunction with the right to judicial protection under Article 36 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The complainant did not substantiate the order of the council, lodged a general constitutional complaint and the Constitutional Court also considered the case as such. The municipality acted in a non-sovereign capacity, a private legal dispute concerning the payment of the contractual fine on the purchase contract.
21. In the finding of sp. zn. II. ÚS 2765 / 20 of 7.4.2022 (N 46 / 111 SbNU 211), the Constitutional Court repeated the legal opinion of the finding in the municipality of Nové Høminova (sp. zn. I. ÚS 178 / 15) in point 15. The proceedings, however, differed from the proceedings sp. zn. I. ÚS 178 / 15 by expressly stating that, to the extent that it objects to violations of the right to self-administration, it makes a municipal complaint within the meaning of Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (b) of the Law on the Constitutional Court. At the same time, the complainant provided evidence of a statement from the council's resolution from which the local constitutional complaint arose.
22. in the sp. zn. I. ÚS 4178 / 18 of 2.4.2019 (N 53 / 93 SbNU 203) The Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional complaint of Strakonice, which lodged a municipal constitutional complaint against the decision of the Regional Court, which declared the elections to the municipal council void. The Constitutional Court stated: "60. In the present case, the Constitutional Court with a municipal constitutional complaint was directly addressed by the City of Strakonice as a local authority, but it is not entitled to lodge a municipal constitutional complaint pursuant to Article 72 (1) (b) of the Constitutional Court Act, since the active legitimacy of such a proposal falls solely on the representative as its body within the meaning of Article 87 (1) (c) and Article 88 (1) of the Constitution. At the same time, there is no reason to consider this communal complaint as a general constitutional complaint, since the City of Strakonice was clearly not a party to the proceedings before the Regional Court... 61. For the same reasons, neither the Council of Strakonice is entitled to lodge a municipal constitutional complaint. The Strakonice City Council, unlike Strakonice, is neither a carrier of the constitutionally guaranteed right to self-government (point 71 of the decision sp. zn.
23. It can therefore be concluded that the decision-making practice of the Constitutional Court is not consistent in the assessment of the type of proceedings and under which conditions territorial authorities or their authorities may seek the protection of their right to self-administration. Although it is clear from the opinion of the plenary, Pl. ÚS-st. 9 / 99 that a general constitutional complaint is only entitled to be lodged by the holder of fundamental rights and freedoms, which cannot be a public authority body, some later findings at the same time admit that municipalities or counties may also seek protection of their right to self-administration (or even that right), without having to demonstrate the will of the council to lodge a constitutional complaint. At the same time, several findings state that interference with the right to self-administration is, for example, a decision by the Administrative Court to abolish a zoning plan (or part of it) approved by the Municipality in a supreme position. In decision-making practice, it can also be found that the difference between communal constitutional complaints and general constitutional complaints lies only in the reference framework of the review - a municipal complaint allows a review by the Constitutional Court not only in terms of the constitutionality of the contested acts but also in terms of their legality.
Own justification of the opinion
24. In this opinion, the Constitutional Court's view clarifies the conditions for the submission of a constitutional complaint by municipalities (and local authorities in general) which object to a breach of their right to self-administration. First, it deals with the conditions for filing a general constitutional complaint under Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (a) of the Constitutional Court Act. It then summarises the conditions for lodging a municipal complaint under Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (b) of the Constitutional Court Act.
25. According to Article 87 (1) of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court decides: "(c) on the constitutional complaints of territorial authorities against unlawful State interference, (d) on the constitutional complaint against a final decision and other intervention by public authorities in constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms'.
26. Under Article 72 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act, a constitutional complaint is entitled to be lodged: "(a) a natural or legal person pursuant to Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution, if he claims that he was a party, measure or other intervention by a public authority (hereinafter referred to as the intervention of a public authority) has infringed his fundamental right or freedom guaranteed by the constitutional order (hereinafter referred to as the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right or freedom '), (b) the representative of a municipality or a higher local authority (hereinafter referred to as the territorial authority) under Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution, where he claims that the unlawful State's action has infringed the guaranteed right of a local authority."
Conditions governing the submission of a general constitutional complaint under Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution where the complainant objects to infringement of the right to self-administration
27. Under Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (a) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, a general constitutional complaint is only entitled to be filed by a body which is competent to be a bearer of fundamental rights and freedoms. The bearer of fundamental rights and freedoms may be not only natural persons, but also legal persons in the case of certain rights whose nature so permits. This also applies to legal persons governed by public law as long as they act in the property (fiscal) sphere or in the area of the provision of certain public services. Such a legal person of public law may in certain situations be typically a municipality, a county or a state [one with significant theoretical problems, cf. Different opinion of Judge Kateřina Šimáčková on the finding sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 20 / 15 of 19.7.2016 (N 127 / 82 SbNU 61)]. In these situations, according to the established case law of the Constitutional Court, public corporations may oppose the violation of certain fundamental rights by constitutional complaints pursuant to Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (a) of the Law on the Constitutional Court. However, taking into account the wording and purpose of those provisions, the active legitimacy of public corporations should be interpreted strictly.
28. If, on the contrary, these entities (i.e. the municipality, the county or the State) act through their authorities in their position as public authorities, they have no subjective rights but only powers (or competences). They have authoritative decisions on the rights and obligations of individuals and are not and cannot be the bearer of fundamental rights and freedoms. Therefore, in such a situation, a constitutional complaint under Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (a) of the Law on the Constitutional Court cannot be lodged; they would be manifestly unjustified to the appellants (see opinion sp. zn.
29. The exercise of self-government (Philip, J. and Saint John, J. State) is also a public authority. For the Commission The Constitutional Guarantee of Territorial Authority is set out in Article 8 of the Constitution, followed by the title of the Seventh Constitution. Article 100 (1) defines the local authorities - municipalities and regions (including the capital of Prague) - as territorial communities which have the right to self-administration. Therefore, the beneficiaries of the right to self-government are local authorities. The following Article 101 (4) allows the State to interfere with the activities of local authorities only if the protection of the law so requires and only in the manner laid down by the law. In addition, it follows from the case-law of the Constitutional Court that legal interference in the right to self-administration must be proportionate (taking into account the constitutional basis of the right to self-administration) to the objectives pursued [the findings of the Pol.
30. As has already been indicated, public administration - and thus also self-administration - performs its tasks through public and private law (Hendrych, D. et al., Administrative Law. General section C. H. Beck, 2016, p. 119, marg. No 224). The local authority may act in private law in the property (fiscal) sphere or in the area of the provision of certain public services (cf. Hendrych, op. cit. also). In such cases, municipalities or counties will act in a non-sovereign capacity vis-à-vis other parties to legal relations and may be the bearer of certain fundamental rights, the nature of which allows it (typically the right to own property or the right to judicial protection).
31. If the municipality or region is to manage and manage its own property or provide certain public services, it will normally also exercise the right to self-administration within the meaning of Article 100 of the Constitution (cf. Article 101 (3) of the Constitution). However, it is not a matter of exercising a fundamental right within the meaning of Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution. Articles 8, 100 and 101 of the Constitution do not contain any fundamental rights. They contain objective constitutional guarantees of self-government, including the Constitution for a guaranteed right to self-government, but not fundamental right or freedom within the meaning of Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution (see resolution sp. zn. II. Z. Chapter II. In: Kühn, Z., Kratochchchul, J., Kmek, J., Košák, D. et al. Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms: a big comment. See footnote 1.
32. The Constitutional Guarantee of the Authority may, in proceedings concerning a general constitutional complaint by a municipality alleging an infringement of a fundamental right or freedom, act as an objective, constitutionally protected principle (similar to the principle of horizontal division of power - see, for example, Case 23 / 24 ÚS of 11.9.2024, where the Constitutional Court found that the complainant's right to judicial protection was infringed under Article 36 (1) of the Charter in conjunction with Articles 2 (1) and 95 (1) of the Constitution). Therefore, if the Constitutional Court finds that there is a breach of fundamental rights or freedoms, it may at the same time also declare a breach of another rule of constitutional order (see Section 82 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act). It should be repeated, however, that the above conclusions on the possibility of a general constitutional complaint are only valid in cases where they do not appear in the highest position.
33. On the contrary, public law forms of the activities of municipalities and counties consist in the overseers of public rights and obligations. Thus, within the limits of its competence, the Authority may, for example, issue individual decisions, generally binding regulations or general measures. In such a case, however, as has already been said, municipalities, counties and their authorities are not a bearer of fundamental rights and freedoms and a constitutional complaint under Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (a) of the Constitutional Court Act cannot be lodged. However, they may lodge a specific type of constitutional complaint - a municipal constitutional complaint under Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution.
Conditions for lodging a municipal constitutional complaint under Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution
34. In order to protect the right of the municipality or region to self-administration under Article 100 of the Constitution, a municipal constitutional complaint pursuant to Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (b) of the Law on the Constitutional Court is used.
35. Such a right may be invoked by a territorial body, both in cases where it acts in private relations and in cases where it acts as a public authority holder in a separate capacity. As the Constitutional Court has stated, the right to self-administration may be affected, for example, by a decision of the Administrative Court on the abolition of a territorial plan (or part of it), which is approved by the Municipality in a superseded capacity and falls within its separate competence (FTC No IV, ÚS 938 / 22, paragraph 18; III, ÚS 709 / 19, paragraph 23; III, ÚS 3817 / 17, paragraph 21; I. ÚS 655 / 17, paragraph 51).
36. The Constitution in Article 87 (1) (c) refers to the "authority" of the Territorial Authority as being actively authorised to submit a proposal. The Law on the Constitutional Court then specifies in § 72 (1) (b) that such a "body 'of the local authorities is the council of municipalities or regions. The legislator seems to have been led by the consideration that in the Czech model of self-administration it is the representative of the local authority, which is the body in charge of matters of separate competence, i.e. in the sphere of the law of the local self-government, for which the municipal complaint is used (cf. Langásek, T. Article 87). Competition of the Constitutional Court. In: Rychetský, P., Langášek, T., Herc, T., Mlsna, P. et al. Constitution of the Czech Republic. Constitutional law on security of the Czech Republic. Comment. Wolters Kluwer, 2015, p. 849 et seq.).
37. The assembly is a collective body that demonstrates its will by a resolution. Thus, the necessary condition for assessing a municipal constitutional complaint is proof that the Council of Ministers, within the legal period laid down by the resolution, has shown its willingness to lodge a municipal complaint. If, at the request of the Constitutional Court, the complainant fails to demonstrate the willingness of the council to lodge a municipal complaint within the statutory deadline, that is the reason for the rejection of the application for uncorrected defects under § 43 (1) (a) of the Law on the Constitutional Court (the findings sp. zn. IV ÚS 938 / 22, paragraph 17, III ÚS 709 / 19, paragraphs 20 and 21; resolution sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 15 / 20, paragraph 15; or II ÚS 3554 / 12).
38. The Constitutional Court assesses the submission by content. Therefore, the reason for rejecting a municipal constitutional complaint cannot be merely an incorrect indication of the appellant. If the appellant demonstrates the willingness of the council to lodge a municipal complaint within the statutory deadline, the Constitutional Court will examine it as a municipal complaint lodged by the representative (as it has in fact done in the decision of the Board of Directors on page IV of ÚS 938 / 22).
39. The Constitutional Court points out at this point that the conditions of active legitimacy for the submission of a municipal constitutional complaint in proceedings stem from the Constitution and the Law on the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court is not bound by the rules on participation in proceedings before administrative courts (cf. Order No 1 Ao 1 / 2009-120 of the enlarged Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court, paragraph 46, according to which the municipality whose representative has issued the territorial plan is the defendant in the proceedings for the annulment of the territorial plan).
40. In the legal opinion set out in the decision in point I.I. of the ÚS 178 / 15, the right to self-administration can also be claimed in the proceedings for a general constitutional complaint, the difference between the communal complaint and the reference framework of the review. While the Constitutional Court only assesses the constitutionality in the General Constitutional Complaints proceedings, the lawfulness of State intervention is also in the municipal complaints proceedings. According to this finding, the procedure of the Constitutional Court depends primarily on the appellant and the nature of the objections raised.
41. According to the plenary of the Constitutional Court, however, such an interpretation contradicts the purpose of the institution of a municipal constitutional complaint under Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution. The decision of the Constitution to separate the two types of constitutional complaint (or two types of jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court) must have meaning in the interpretation. The reasonable importance of this division is that, while Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution serves to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of persons, the competence of the Constitutional Court under Article 87 (1) (c) aims precisely at protecting another constitutionally protected right (i.e. not a fundamental right), i.e. the specific right of the local authorities to self-government.
42. The difference in the reference framework of the review (i.e. the constitutional order vs. the law) in the case of the right to self-government makes no sense in the light of Article 101 (4) of the Constitution, according to which the State can intervene in the activities of local authorities only if it requires the protection of the law and only in the manner laid down by the law. The purpose of establishing this condition is to avoid potential interference, in particular, by the power exercised in the operation of the local authorities without legal support, i.e. without any balancing by the legislative authority [the findings in section II.II. ÚS 2200 / 15, paragraphs 16 and 17; and IV ÚS 331 / 02 of 30.9.2002 (N 113 / 27 SbNU 245); See also Podhrazký M. In: Bahluľová, L. et al. Constitution of the Czech Republic: commentary. Praha: Linde, 2010, p. 1404].
43. In other words, the Constitution prohibits interference in the activities of municipalities and regions which are not in accordance with the law. At the same time, any assessment of the constitutionality of intervention in the right to self-administration requires an assessment of the legality of such intervention.
44. The Constitution and the Law on the Constitutional Court therefore distinguish between a municipal constitutional complaint and a general constitutional complaint and lay down specific conditions of active legitimacy for the submission of one or the other type of proposal. This is contradicted by the situation leading to the finding in point II.I. of the ÚS 178 / 15 in the case from which this opinion has come. The municipality, which does not have a resolution from the council expressing its will to lodge a municipal complaint, could instead, according to the approach chosen in this finding, lodge a general constitutional complaint with the same argument through the mayor. The review reference framework would, as explained above, be the same. Such a procedural outcome is contrary to the explicit wording, purpose and scheme of Article 87 (1) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) and Article 82 of the Constitutional Court Act, as interpreted in other findings by the case law of the Constitutional Court.
Conclusion
45. For these reasons, the plenary of the Constitutional Court overcomes the legal opinion previously expressed in the sp. zn. I. ÚS 178 / 15. It reaches the following three key conclusions:
46. First, for the protection of the right to self-administration, the proceedings for municipal constitutional complaints under Article 87 (1) (c) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (b) of the Constitutional Court Act are used. The right to self-administration is not a fundamental right or freedom within the meaning of Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution.
47. Secondly, a general constitutional complaint under Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution and Article 72 (1) (a) of the Law on the Constitutional Court may be lodged only by such a body as is competent to be a bearer of fundamental rights and freedoms. Such a body is a territorial self-governing entity acting through its authorities in a supreme position. If the municipality or region is in a non-sovereign position, it may be the bearer of certain fundamental rights, the nature of which allows it. In the proceedings for a constitutional complaint, the Constitutional Court may also find a breach of the constitutional guarantee of self-government as a constitutionally protected principle if it finds at the same time a breach of the fundamental right or freedom within the meaning of Article 87 (1) (d) of the Constitution.
48. Thirdly, only the council of the municipality or region has the active legitimacy to lodge a municipal complaint. The condition for the assessment of such a complaint is proof that the Council of Ministers, within the legally prescribed time limit, has shown its willingness to lodge a communal complaint. Such evidence will typically be a statement from the council resolution.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr.
In accordance with Article 14 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, the judges Zdeněk Kühn, Pavel Šámal and Daniela Zeman took a different position on the opinion of the full.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | Communication from the Constitutional Court No 21 / 2026 Coll., on the adoption of the Opinion of the Plenary of the Pl. ÚS- st. 62 / 25 on a municipal constitutional complaint as a means of protecting the right to self-administration |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | Communication from the Constitutional Court |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 18.02.2026 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0