The Constitutional Court found No. 211 / 2003 Coll.

The provisions of Sections 3 and 6 of Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll., on the transition of certain other items, rights and obligations of the Czech Republic to regions and municipalities, civil associations active in the field of sports and related changes and amending Act No. 157 / 2000 Coll., on the transition of certain items, rights and obligations from the property of the Czech Republic, as amended by Act No. 10 / 2001 Coll., and Act No. 20 / 1966 Coll., on the care of the people, as amended, is repealed on 31 December 2003.

The rest is rejected.

A group of 45 Members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic submitted on 24 February 2003 to the Constitutional Court pursuant to Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) a proposal to repeal the provisions of § 1 (2) (b), § 2 (2) (b), § 4 (2) (b), § 5 (2) second sentence and § 6 of Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll., on the transition of certain other items, rights and obligations of the Czech Republic to counties and municipalities, civic associations active in the field of physical and sport and related health care, as amended by Act No. 157 / 2000 Coll.

Following the recap of the various provisions of the contested law, the appellants claim in the statement of reasons for their proposal that the legal provisions are unilaterally, without the possibility for the counties and municipalities concerned to express their consent or dissent in a relevant way, to the extent that they are transferred from the State of the selected case, the rights and obligations of the State still in question, while at the same time determining that the defined organisational elements of the State and the state contribution organisations are becoming the organisational elements or contribution organisations of the relevant self-governing bodies. The appellants of the law argue that they do not deal with such fundamental issues as the question of the reimbursement of the State's obligations incurred by 31 December 2002, which go from 1 January 2003 to the county or municipality. Nor is the issue of the reimbursement of the commitments of the state contribution organisations, which became regional and municipal contribution organisations on 1 January 2003, addressed; in the event of the cancellation of such contributory organisations, the liabilities would be transferred to the founders, after 1 January 2003 to the county or municipality (§ 27 (3) of Act No. 250 / 2000 Coll., on the budgetary rules of the territorial budgets). According to the appellants, the Act thus unacceptably imposes an undue burden on the financial position of the local authorities (hereinafter referred to as the "USC '), which are separate legal entities different from the State, and which the State can only intervene against for reasons of the protection of the law. The regions will be forced to make use of their own funds to cover such commitments, and there will be a situation in which the self-governing bodies will, by means of funds intended for self-governing activities, cover the State's or the contribution organisations' obligations arising at the time when the State was their founder. The undesired consequence of this may then be the fact that a substantial less money will be spent on the self-governing activities of the USC than originally determined and would be issued if the State had not transferred its obligations or obligations of its contribution organisations to those USC. In this context, the appellants stress that the core part of the assets acquired - real estate - cannot be used for 10 years for a purpose other than that for which they were used on 1.1.2003. In their view, the situation cannot be resolved either on the basis of the legal opinion put forward by certain representatives of the State, namely the view that the State is liable for the commitments of the former State contribution organisations which arose before 31 December 2002. It is a question of whether, in the case of the conversion of these organisations into regional or municipal contribution organisations on 1 January 2003, the State guarantee, which existed under Section 74 of Act No. 218 / 2000 Coll., on budgetary rules and on the amendment of certain related laws (budgetary rules), has ceased. However, even if such a State guarantee existed after that date, this would not solve the problem of the unacceptable debt of territorial government units. In fact, if the State, as guarantor, would cover the liabilities of a former State contribution organisation, the State would, in view of the legal consequences of the guarantee, be denied a regression claim on the county or municipality's budget organisation, or directly against the county or municipality, and the relative financial independence of these self-governing entities on the State, in particular on an executive basis, would essentially be denied in its content, as it would depend on the State's will to apply its regression claim to them or not. According to the appellants, such a situation is contrary to the constitutional concept of self-government as contained in the Constitution in Articles 99, 100 (1) and 8. The appellants stress that part of the right of the USC to self-administration is also the right to adequate financial security for the activities carried out by these entities in the public interest entrusted by the legislature to them by law. This concept of the right to self-government also corresponds to the provisions of Article 3 (1) of the European Charter of Local Government (hereinafter referred to as the Charter), which refers not only to the right but also to the ability of local communities within the limits of the law under their responsibility and in the interests of the local population to regulate and manage a substantial part of the public affairs. One of the prerequisites of the USSR's ability to carry out its self-governing activities is also sufficient financial collateral. It is, of course, a matter of power that is legislative as to how it will organise the system of taxes, fees and other revenues of the State and of the USSR, but ultimately it must guarantee the long-term financial stability of those public law entities. Otherwise, the relative autonomy of these units would become an empty concept.

As the appellants further point out, the transfer of rights and obligations from the State to the county or municipality by law could be consistent with the Constitution if it were accompanied by such a system of financial security for tasks related to the transfer of assets that would ensure the long-term financial balance of the regions and municipalities even after such transition. However, in particular, the legislature transmits to similar hospitals and other health establishments, for the most part, such organisational or contribution organisations that are burdened with large-scale debts. These debts are not only not likely to be reimbursed by the new acquirer in the foreseeable future for the current healthcare financing system, but, on the contrary, they can be expected to continue to increase, to an extent that may seriously jeopardise the financial stability of the regions. In order to prove that the health financing system is not financially self-sufficient at the moment, as well as to prove that a number of hospitals moving to the region are in debt in the long term, the promoters proposed the implementation of the proof by a report from the Government or the Ministry of Health and the opinion of the Association of Regions of the Czech Republic. The appellants also point out that the contested legislation does not only involve undue interference with the autonomy of the Autonomous Communities, but also threatens to impair the position of creditors from those obligations who have entered into contractual relations with the State or with a State contribution organisation, knowing that their debtor is directly or indirectly a State, but, as a result of the adoption of the law, another economic entity becomes a debtor. They also point out that Act No. 172 / 1991 Coll., on the transfer of certain items from the property of the Czech Republic to the ownership of municipalities, which dealt with a comparable problem - the property base of newly created municipalities - determined which of the assets of the State are transferred to the municipalities without, however, burdensome those municipalities to the obligations of the state or state organisations until then.

Finally, with reference to Article 11 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Charter), in view of what has already been stated for the transferred assets, the appellants demonstrate that the right of the regions as owners of property freely to decide on their ownership is significantly relativised and, on the basis of a State decision, emptied. In their view, it is also a question of whether the contested provisions do not infringe the constitutional principle of equality of property and property freedom, as they force other persons to own something when the law has actually been imposed on them - the law has ordered the countries of ownership of certain items and the position of the debtor in certain binding private-law relations, which could certainly not be done against others. This is where the appellants see a serious breach of the principle that the ownership of all owners has the same content and enjoys the same protection. In addition to this breach, it is also a serious restriction of ownership freedom or constitutional postulate that ownership is regarded as a right, not as an obligation, because the obligations may only arise subsequently. The obligation to own is not well enough to be imposed, and as a private-law person, the region has lost the right to decide whether to acquire certain things. For those reasons, the appellants therefore consider that there has been a breach of the right to self-administration guaranteed by Articles 8 and 100 (1) of the Constitution, an infringement of the right of ownership guaranteed by Article 11 (1) of the Charter, as well as of the principles on which the European Charter of Local Government was adopted, and therefore proposed that the Constitutional Court should abolish the provisions of the Law referred to above.

In accordance with § 69 paragraph 1 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, the Constitutional Court requested the observations of the two chambers of Parliament of the Czech Republic.

The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, signed by its President, states that Law 290 / 2002 Coll. was prepared in the context of the implementation of the second phase of the reform of the public administration and resulted from the need to settle the assets of the State, with which the State and the state organisations of a regional nature were managing the assets of the State, with which they performed the founding and establishment functions of the regional authorities. This is not a transfer of state administration to the USSR, but a change in ownership and a related change in the legal status of the State institutions mentioned. The Act is a transformational law of a one-off nature with the aim of equipping the USC with other sets of assets that should be used to provide services to citizens of regions and municipalities. In accordance with this Act, the property was transferred to the separate jurisdiction of the regions and municipalities on 1 January 2003 and it can therefore be concluded that the law was already consumed.

To the appellants' objection that the law infringed the rights of self-administration, imposed the will and there was an inadmissible financial burden on the regions and municipalities, the statement refers to the findings of the Constitutional Court sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 1 / 96 [Dec. No. 294 / 1996 Coll.; published in the Collection of Finals and Order of the Constitutional Court ("the Reports of the Decisions'), Volume 6, Found No. 120] and Pl. ÚS 34 / 02 (Dec. No. 53 / 2003 Coll.; will be published in the Reports of the Decision, Volume 29, Found 18) and the reasons set out therein.

It can be concluded from the provisions of both the Constitution and the Charter that the legal limits for the action of the territorial authorities are acceptable and can be rather strict and binding if there are important reasons for doing so. Such a law is also the Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll., under which the contested provisions of § 3 and § 6 of the Act can be attributed, where the State has exercised the power granted to it by the then applicable provisions of § 19 of Act No. 129 / 2000 Coll., on counties (Regional Establishment) and the then applicable provision of § 40 of the Act No. 128 / 2000 Coll., on municipalities (Municipal Establishment), and has laid down the conditions for the treatment of the acquired immovable property free of charge and has determined the period of conservation of the purpose to which it served. Similar arrangements aimed at protecting the purpose of the existing use of immovable property were already applied in Act No. 137 / 1991 Coll., which amended and supplemented Act No. 403 / 1990 Coll., on the mitigation of the consequences of certain property injustices, as amended by Act No. 458 / 1990 Coll.

For these reasons The Chamber of Deputies notes that the contested provisions cannot be contrary to the Constitution, the rule of law or the Charter of Local Government. In conclusion, the opinion is then expressed that the legislature acted in accordance with the legal procedure when discussing this law and in the belief that the adopted law is in accordance with the constitutional and legal order of the Czech Republic.

The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, signed by its President, recalls that the bill was returned by the Senate to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments, but the Chamber of Deputies approved the bill on 13.6.2002, as referred to by the Senate. In the general debate, it was said, among other things, that the transfer of some assets, which was to be transferred to municipalities together with the institutions, had not been discussed with the respective municipalities, and in essence they did not agree with the transition. It was also noted that the transition of libraries to municipalities instead of to regions would burden the respective municipalities with high costs, which would put the municipalities in financial difficulties that could result in undesirable cancellations of libraries. The view that libraries should go to the regions was then reflected in one of the amendments. In the general debate, there was also criticism of the non-systemic procedure for the transition of medical facilities and rescue services to the regions, but the Senate plenary took the view that, in a situation where the abolition of the county authorities should be envisaged, it is better to adopt the necessary technical amendments to the proposed act than to exclude the regulation of the transition of medical facilities from the proposal altogether.

Furthermore, in its observations on the appellants' objection that he had already transferred assets from the State to the municipality in the past, without burdening the municipality with his obligations, it is undisputed that Law No. 172 / 1991 Coll. only dealt with the transfer of ownership of things from the State to the municipality, but, for example, pursuant to § 68 of Act No. 367 / 1990 Coll., on municipalities (municipal establishment), it also transferred all the rights and obligations of local national committees and municipal national committees from the State to the municipalities in which these national committees had their registered offices on the date of its effectiveness. A similar procedure has also taken place for the district national committees of certain cities. Furthermore, pursuant to Paragraph 67 (1) of the Act cited, the function of the founder and the power to establish, manage and abolish the organisations which were carried out by local and urban national committees has been transferred to the municipalities in which these organisations were located. The universal transition of the rights and obligations of organisations and establishments in the event of a reform of public administration is a standard procedure ensuring a certain degree of legal certainty as well as material continuity. Without the possibility of a universal transfer of rights and obligations and the transfer of ownership to things by law, any reform of public administration would not be feasible. It is true that not all the assets of the national committees were "ordered" by law to the municipalities under the rules in force at the time. According to Article 67 (2) of Law 367 / 1990 Coll. the municipalities were able to ask the State to delegate the function of founder and the power to establish, abolish and manage the organisations and facilities of district national committees and regional national committees. If requested, these organisations were transferred as units including commitments. This procedure was made possible by the then state administration system, as regional authorities were also set up, which could take over and manage the assets of the former national committees without problems and with the knowledge of local circumstances. In assessing the problem, it should be taken into account that the completion of the second stage of the reform of the public administration meant the abolition of the regional authorities, so that the State does not currently have an organisational structure which, with knowledge of local conditions, could effectively, not from the centre, manage the property of a state that is not supra-regional. The state, when approving the concept of the transfer of assets to the regions and municipalities, was undoubtedly guided by the idea of equipping the regions and municipalities with the necessary property needed for the exercise of their responsibilities, whether delegated or independent. Paragraph 3 and Section 6 of the contested law were incorporated into them in order to ensure that the State, after the transfer of the assets, had the use of the assets for public good purposes, i.e. in particular for areas of activity where the State, regions or municipalities are under an obligation to provide for one of their respective functions. On the other hand, it is up to the Constitutional Court to consider whether the restrictions applied in these provisions are "still 'in conformity with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, in particular with Article 1 and Article 4 of the Charter. In this context, the observations are intended to take account of the consequences of the possible repeal of certain provisions, and in this respect stresses that the contested law is a transformative law and that the provisions proposed for annulment have already been fulfilled. The commitments which have been transferred to the regions and municipalities on the basis of the contested provisions will not automatically be transferred to the State by simply" abolishing part of the law by the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court, pursuant to Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution, shall decide to repeal the laws or their individual provisions if they are contrary to the constitutional order, thereby creating a scope for reregulation with the constitutional order. If, after the withdrawal of the provisions in question, the State does not assume the abovementioned obligations on the basis of a contract or other fact, or does not deal with the USC otherwise, it shall be possible only to speculate on the procedure chosen by those units in order to obtain satisfaction. There is no doubt that the State has a duty to provide the USSR with certain funds in order to exercise both the powers that the State delegates to them and the separate powers. As already stated by the Constitutional Court in the preamble to the finding No 53 / 2003 Coll., the legal provisions on State contributions to the exercise of the delegation are rough, but can still be interpreted in a constitutional and international manner. Although the amount of the contribution to the exercise of the delegated powers of the USSR is determined by the executive body, it can, in particular in terms of contributions, only be moved within the framework of the State Budget Act. In addition, Act No 243 / 2000 Coll., on the budgetary determination of the revenue of certain taxes to local authorities and certain state funds (Act on the Budget Determination of Taxes), as amended, guarantees these entities a share of the revenue obtained by the State by collecting certain taxes, thereby ensuring to a large extent the stability of the financial position of municipalities and regions. The whole problem needs to be seen in a comprehensive way, as the amount of resources which the State can spend on the activities of local and local authorities is limited to the economic performance and economic situation of the State or the state budget. Public budgets must be seen to some extent as linked systems. The State can spend resources not according to the requirements of the USSR, but as far as possible, i.e. according to the amount of its revenue. From this point of view, it can rather be agreed with the view that it is an economic problem, namely a political one, not a legal one.

In accordance with § 49 (1) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll. also the opinions of the Ministry of Health and Association of Regions of the Czech Republic were requested.

The Ministry of Health stated that the second phase of the reform of the public administration related to the closure of the activities of the district authorities and the transfer of their responsibilities to the USSR was completed by the adoption of the contested law. As part of the implementation of the process of this reform, it was also necessary to deal with the assets of the State, which were managed by the State and by a state organisation of a regional character, in which the regional authorities performed their founding or establishment functions. It was therefore not a transfer of the state administration to the USSR, but a change of ownership and a related change in the legal status of those State institutions. Government Resolution 765 of 25 July 2001 approved the Harmonogram of legislative preparation for the security of the second phase of public administration reform and the Ministry of Finance, in cooperation with the relevant departments, was ordered to draw up a draft law on the transfer of State assets and on the transfer of establishment functions from the regional authorities to the State's contribution organisations and organisational components. Thus, on 1 July 2002, the contested law became effective, on the basis of which on 1 January 2003 the state contribution organisations, for which the regional authorities, the regional aid organisations, performed the functions of the founder on the relevant date, became the regional aid organisations. These organisations remained holders of all liabilities existing on the relevant date and remained holders of rights and obligations under labour law. On the same date, all rights and other assets of the State with which those organisations were responsible were transferred to each region. Thus, the change in the body did not interrupt the activity of the contribution organisations, since they did not disappear, but only changed their legal status from state to state. Therefore, their legal successors are not created, and the organisations continue to operate under another entity with the same ID in unaltered contractual and labour relations.

The Ministry of Health according to the provisions of Section 10 of Act No. 2 / 1969 Coll., on the establishment of ministries and other central bodies of the state administration of the Czech Socialist Republic, as amended, and pursuant to Act No. 20 / 1966 Coll., on the care of the health of the people, as amended, deals primarily with issues in the area of health care provision in accordance with the needs of the company and sets out guidelines for health development. The Ministry of Health is not and was not under the applicable legislation [Act No. 218 / 2000 Coll., as amended; Act No. 320 / 2001 Coll., on Financial Control in Public Administration and amending certain laws (Financial Control Act), as amended; Act No. 147 / 2000 Coll., on District Offices, as amended by Act No. 320 / 2001 Coll., entitled to deal with the issue of financing or otherwise interfere with the management of health facilities in the event that it is not their founder. The management of state health establishments as contributory organisations is governed by generally applicable legislation, which also applied to installations within the jurisdiction of the county authorities until the end of 2002. By the entry into force of Act No. 218 / 2000 Coll., the district authorities and bodies they established and controlled were part of the relevant budget chapter - 380 under the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance. In view of this, the Ministry of Health notes in its observations that it cannot be held responsible for the individual concrete results of the management of healthcare establishments under the responsibility of other authorities.

It is clear from the requested comments of the Association of Regions of the Czech Republic of 22 May 2003 that the Association is in agreement with the position of the proposal and confirms the fact that the debts of health institutions under the existing system of health care financing cannot be reimbursed by the Region in the foreseeable future. In order to cover these debts, the counties would have to use funds intended to finance other statutory obligations in the fields of education, transport, culture, environment, social affairs, etc. Failure to address the long-term understated health situation may soon seriously jeopardise the financial stability of the regions or the availability of healthcare provided.

Since the appellants in their draft commitments accentuate the problem of commitments in particular in relation to the transboundary medical facilities, the Constitutional Court also requested "the Government's report on the state of indebtedness of state hospitals, on the resolution of these debts and the legal provision for the transfer of hospitals to the county 'of 5.12.2002, which the Government discussed on 5.12.2002, and took note of it at its 8th meeting of 10.12.2002. In this report, following the introduction of the amendments introduced by Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll., inter alia, it states that" the question of the status of medical facilities should have been resolved by Act No. 219 / 2000 Coll., on the property of the Czech Republic and its appearance in legal relations, which did not happen. There has been a long discussion, following the financial indisposition of hospitals, about the future legal status of health establishments, in particular whether health establishments will be state or non-state establishments. Finally, a variant of the so-called preservation of contributory organisations, namely health care facilities until the time of special legislation, was chosen, thereby limiting any position of establishment. The indebtedness of sleeper health establishments, the founder of which is the district office, is not a problem that would arise only at the moment of the transfer to the regions. Some hospitals, totalling at a certain level of debt, have been in a system of reimbursement from health insurance sources throughout their existence. In the various stages, attempts were made to address this situation, for example in 1995 by a partial change in the real way from health insurance companies to a flat-rate payment, which was constructed for a certain reference period in 1997, and by the simultaneous granting of loans to several large hospitals and individual bodies of health insurance companies, most recently in 1997, called "flat-rate debt." With a two-year gap, a specific comprehensive programme was implemented which responded to the oldest commitments after the maturity period of health care facilities that met the criteria. The source of this programme was partly to limit the investment development proposed in the budget for the year in question. With the general conviction and certainty that GDP resources for health care will not be significantly increased, proposals have been repeatedly made over recent periods to change the way health care is financed more or less. Most of them were not implemented. "Furthermore, the report states that" neither the State Budget for 2002 nor the draft budget for 2003 has the resources to balance the balance sheets of the individual hospitals transferred. It is therefore necessary to proceed in accordance with Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll., which specifies the plan for such transfers, with significant differences in the state of the economy of individual health establishments, where the existing founder, who had an immediate influence on the management and hence on the management of hospitals, has an irreplaceable share. "The report notes that the value of the transferred assets is well above the current level of debt, as of 30 September 2002 the receivables for these facilities amounted to approximately CZK 3.1 billion, and liabilities amounted to CZK 3.8 billion. The value of long-term assets is approximately CZK 42.2 billion, which is converted into regions. The report lacks a concrete solution to the problems of debt burdening the transboundary health institutions. The annexes show what is stated in the text, namely that there are significant differences in the state of the economy of individual health establishments. The following are projected into the situation in individual regions: the hospital commitments (after deducting the claims): Prague City - 6 875 000 CZK, Central Bohemian Region - 213 013000 CZK, South Bohemian Region - 60 001 000 CZK, Pilsen Region - 47 579 000 CZK, Karlovy Vary Region - 87 100 000 CZK, Ústecký Region - 131 186 000 CZK, Liberecky Region - 13 741 000 CZK, Kralovehradecký Region - 151 312 000 CZK, Pardubice Region - 100 951 000 CZK, Region Vysočina - 88 708 000 CZK, Jihomoravský Region - 66 852 000 CZK, Olomouc Region - 0, Zlín Region 146 909 000 CZK, Moravian-Silesian Region 154 600 000 CZK.

The Constitutional Court, in proceedings for the annulment of laws and other legislation, assesses the content of the law according to the criterion contained in the provision of § 68 paragraph 2 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., as amended, in terms of its compliance with constitutional laws. Before entering into a formal discussion of the proposal, it also examined, in accordance with its obligation under the provision cited (in fine), whether the formal conditions for the adoption of the law had been fulfilled and the contested law was adopted within the limits of the Constitution laid down by competence and in a constitutional manner.

In this respect, he found out from the shorthand report on the 43rd and 47th session of the Chamber of Deputies, the 3rd term, that the Chamber of Deputies approved Act No. 290 / 2002, after due consideration, at its 47th meeting held on 27 March 2002 (Resolution No. 2208), when of the 159 Members present, 85 and 69 voted against. In addition, it was demonstrated from the short-term report of the 17th Senate meeting, the third term of office, that on 14.5.2002 (Resolution No 384) the two senators voted in favour of the proposal as amended by this Chamber of Parliament's adopted amendments from the 64 Senators 55 present. The Chamber of Deputies then voted in favour of the motion returned by the Senate (as amended by its amendments) at its 51st meeting of 13 June 2002, so that 91 of the 188 Members present voted in favour and 80 of them opposed. Thus, this vote has not led to the adoption by the Senate of the proposal as amended. In the subsequent vote on the proposal, in accordance with Rule 47 (3) The Constitution, in the version in which it was referred to the Senate, expressed its opposition to the proposal in question (Resolution No 2317) from the same number of legislators present, 108 to and 65. Then Law No 290 / 2002 Coll. was signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and properly published in the amount of 106 Collection of Laws which was distributed on 28.6.2002. The Law in question came into force on 1 July 2002.

On the basis of these findings, it can be concluded that Law No 290 / 2002 Coll. was properly adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down competence and the constitutional procedure (Article 68 (2) of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll., as amended), which makes the proposal eligible for substantive examination in order to assess its compliance with constitutional law or constitutional order [Articles 83 and 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution].

(For the sake of completeness, it should be added that Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll. was amended by Act No. 150 / 2003 Coll., which took effect on 23.5.2003, but that amendment did not affect either of the proposals of the group of Members of the contested provisions).

The Law under examination No 290 / 2002 Coll. is a transformational law adopted in the context of the implementation of the second phase of the reform of public administration. On the basis of the classification of its § 1 paragraph 1, on 1 January 2003, the Czech Republic transferred from the ownership of the regions of the case with which, on 31 December 2002, the competent authorities of the State and the State Contributors Organisations were responsible, with which the authorities of the district were responsible on the last day. At the same time, the organizational components and state contribution organisations became the organizational components and contribution organisations of the respective regions on 1 January 2003 (§ 2 paragraphs 1 and 2 of Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll.). On 1 January 2003 the commitments of the State, for which the state's organizational bodies provided tasks under Act No. 219 / 2000 Coll. (on the assets of the Czech Republic and its presentation in legal relations), and also the regional contribution organisation transformed by this Act from state contribution organisations, remained the carriers of commitments, including the rights and obligations of employment relationships, whose holders were named by the former state contribution organisations [§ 1 paragraph 2 (b), § 2 paragraph 2 of Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll.]. A similar transition took place in relation to the municipalities [§ 4 (2) (b), § 5 (1) and (2) of Act No 290 / 2002 Coll.].

According to the appellants, these provisions involve undue interference with the constitutional right to local authorities, breach of the constitutionally guaranteed relations between the State and the USSR, undue interference with the private legal status of third parties and also breach the right of ownership guaranteed by the Charter. The basic reason that led the appellant to submit a proposal - as they expressly state - is that, as a result of the law, they move to regions, municipalities and their contribution organisations without any further commitment to the State until now, when the State so unacceptably solves its indebtedness and its organisations, particularly in the field of health.

The Constitutional Court first examined the provisions of § 1 (2) (b), § 2 (2) second sentence, § 4 (2) (b) and § 5 (2) second sentence of the second law.

In its earlier decision-making practice, the Constitutional Court indicated that it considered the local government to be an indispensable component of democracy and repeatedly stated that the local government is an expression of the law and capacity of local authorities within the limits of the law, within the limits of its responsibility and in the interests of the local population to regulate and manage part of the public affairs [the findings of the Pol. ÚS 1 / 96 (see above), Pl. ÚS 17 / 98 (published under No 28 / 1999 Coll.; published in the ECR, Volume 13, Found 6)].

On the legal expression of the reform of the public administration, relating to its decentralisation and decontamination, linked to the constitution of the regions, the extension of the exercise of State authority in the delegation of the regions and municipalities and the abolition of the district authorities, the Constitutional Court, in its decision sp. zn. In the preamble to this finding, the Constitutional Court stated that the constitutional guarantee of the Territorial Authority under the Constitution was laconic. The Constitution establishes the legal personality of the USC and assumes that the self-governing bodies have their own assets and manage according to their own budget (Article 101 (3) of the Constitution). It also explicitly provides for the participation of the USC in the exercise of State authority on the basis of legal authority (Article 105 of the Constitution). The latter found also stressed that the Czech Constitutional Standard of Territorial Authority is supplemented and enriched by the standard resulting from the international obligations of the Czech Republic, namely the Charter of Local Authority, negotiated on 15 October 1985, which entered into force for the Czech Republic on 1 September 1999 by the publication in the Czech Republic under No 181 / 1999 Coll. with the fact that the rights guaranteed by the Charter of Territorial Authority of the Contracting Parties are framework. The Charter also envisages in a number of its provisions detailed national rules and does not guarantee full freedom of territorial self-government. The laws, or other provisions, may therefore, at the choice and traditions of the Contracting Parties, specify in more detail the content of matters managed by the Territorial Authority, including those which the Authority is required to monitor, its organisation and also the framework for the management, the allocation of assets and its financial resources, however, as far as financial resources are concerned, Article 9 (1) of the Charter provides that local communities have the right, within the context of the economic policy of the State, to adequate own financial resources with which they may freely dispose, and these should be proportionate to the responsibilities laid down by the Constitution and the Law (Article 9 (2) of the Charter). The Constitutional Court already found that the framework for the financing of the USSR (as well as the definition of their tasks) should not lead to a financial collapse while maintaining economy. (He also stated that the view of the authoritative delimitation and the action of the de-limited workers of the dismantled county authorities within the counties of the entrusted cities and municipalities in the light of the Charter and the Constitution must therefore depend on the way in which the State has delegated its powers, with the conclusion that the lack of funding for the exercise of the State's powers in delegation threatens the very existence of the functions of the local authorities.) These considerations can also be relied on in the light of the material under consideration in the present case as regards their basis of argument.

According to the initial thesis on which the concept of self-government is built, the foundation of a free state is a free community, then from the point of view of the importance of the regional community at the higher level of the territorial hierarchy of the self-governing community of citizens, which according to the Constitution is the region. In this concept of a public administration built from below, the self-government, as an important element of the democratic rule of law, must be an immanent postulate, according to which the USSR must have a real possibility of matter and issues of local importance, including those which, for their very nature, go beyond the regional framework and which it decides within its own competence, must be dealt with on the basis of its free discretion, whereby the will of representatives represented at local and regional level and solely by the responsibility of the electorate and on the basis of the legal and constitutional framework in its specific speech is subsequently limited (Article 101 (4) of the Constitution). Territorial authorities representing the territorial community of citizens must thus have the freedom, through the autonomous decision-making of their representative bodies, to decide how they will dispose of the funds they are equipped to carry out their tasks. It is the management of its property separately on its own account and its own responsibility is an attribute of self-government. Therefore, the existence of own and sufficient financial or property resources is a prerequisite for the effective performance of the functions of the local authority.

In the field under consideration, particular account should be taken of the state of those organisations which are, from an indispensable part of health care establishments. These are dominated - as is also the expression of the Association of Regions of the Czech Republic - by non-negligible debts, which, in individual cases, amount to tens to hundreds of millions of crowns, which are able to influence the budget of the local authority in a significant way, especially where the debts of the medical institutions thus burdened within the USC are greater. The Act No. 250 / 2000 Coll., on the budgetary rules of the Territorial Budget, as amended, sets out the rules for the management of funds whose revenue for the future is provided by other laws - in particular by Act No. 243 / 2000 Coll., on the budgetary determination of the revenue of certain taxes to the local authorities and certain state funds (the Finance Act), as amended - but this does not change the fact that, at the very beginning of the activities of these entities, these entities are burdened by the burden of the activities of the State or its organisations, and it is so obvious that this can significantly affect the self-governing activities and prevent the local authorities from spending funds intended for their own self-governing activities to serve the intended purpose (Article 101 (3). However, the merits of the step in which the State has transferred certain assets to the USSR in the context of the reform of public administration cannot be called into question, given the reasons that are based on a historically confirmed belief, on which it is, in particular, those concerned by the matter and to whom it is directly serving, are capable and, by the nature of the matter, willing and motivated to manage it with the care of a proper economy, often better than centrally organised state power, and in a much more effective, full manner. Decentralisation of tasks and the associated transfer of assets is also not something constitutionally unacceptable. However, the link between this step and the subsequent transfer or continued duration of the liabilities associated with this property envisages further solutions, following a system of taxes, subsidies and similar benefits. The State should not, without further ado, waive liability for debts incurred at the time of its management of the transferred property resulting from the previous loss-making exercise of ownership rights and possibly non-compliance with the law [provisions § 53 et seq., Act No. 218 / 2000 Coll., on budgetary rules and on the amendment of certain related laws (budgetary rules)]. It should no longer do so in relation to such entities, through which it should also carry out its tasks of ensuring the fundamental rights arising from Article 31 of the Charter, the guarantor of which he himself is a guarantor. Such actions by the sovereign already give rise to considerations about the abuse of state power at the expense of the USC. Although this is a diametrically different situation, a horizontal reference in private law, expressed and generally fair, is also offered, according to which, even in cases of free transfer, the forerunner (Section 500 (2) of the Civil Code) is in principle responsible for debts linked to the case, including from the point of view of argument and minori ad maius.

The Senate's view that the problem of previous management deficit needs to be tackled in a comprehensive way can be agreed, but if inertia is not to continue in the debt of the assets in question, efforts must be made by the State to eliminate this undesirable situation. Its continued duration would already be liable to jeopardise both the performance of the functions of the Authority and the position of creditors whose rights should be guaranteed in the rule of law.

However, the intervention of the Constitutional Court itself, consisting of the annulment of the above provisions, would not remove this undesirable situation. Pursuant to Article 71 (4) of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll., which regulates the legal effects of the annulment of the findings of the Constitutional Court (and which bind the Constitutional Court within the meaning of Article 88 (2) of the Constitution), the rights and obligations arising from legal relations arising before the repeal of the law remain unaffected. The Constitutional Court therefore had to take into account that, as pointed out above, the contested law is a transformative, one-off law. The legal consequences with the legal provisions under consideration and foreseen by this law have already occurred as early as 1 January 2003, and the ability to cause legal consequences in the future is thus fully exhausted. Thus, the corresponding finding of the Constitutional Court, which has the effect of ex nunc, would no longer have the capacity to change anything in the present situation even in the light of the provision cited in § 71 (4) of Law No 182 / 1993 Coll. For this reason, the Constitutional Court had no choice but to reject the appellants' proposal in this section.

However, according to the Constitutional Court, the situation in the assessment of the provisions of § 3 and § 6 of Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll., which is a new owner (municipality, county) in relation to immovable property is somewhat different in their use, for a period of 10 years from the date of their acquisition, only for the purpose for which they were used at the date of the transition, with the fact that, before the expiry of that period, the municipality (county) must be offered for free transfer to the State according to local assumptions and practices which are not needed for that purpose and which it is not used for social, educational or medical purposes.

As can be seen from the construction of this legislation as well as from the explanatory report on the draft Act No. 290 / 2002 Coll., the aim of the restriction is to reflect the need to maintain for at least a certain period the use of the units of immovable property acquired for the purposes which they served by the date of the transition or to allow their use only for the purposes of serving other taxa-listed public interests.

According to the opinion of the Constitutional Court, this limitation must be seen (apart from the following statements) in the context of the above conclusions, as well as from the point of view of Article 11 (3) of the Charter, according to which ownership is committed and must not be misused against the rights of others or contrary to the legally protected general interests.

The restriction of property law, in the present case provided for by the law, with the precise, specifically defined and certain purpose of that restriction, in the abovementioned public interest, does not, in its determination of the elements of libel and in view of the arguments on which it is based, fulfil the characteristics of the inconstitutionality (contrary to the situation in the sp. zn. This conclusion must be understood in the context of the ongoing transformation carried out in the context of the reform of the public administration. In the context of this process, the public interest may be attributed to the ability to be, on a general basis, an admissible, reasonably justified reason for restricting the ownership of territorial authorities.

It follows from the Constitutional Court's decision-making practice that restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms may occur in the event of a conflict with another constitutionally protected value which is not a fundamental right or freedom, including in the case of an urgent public interest. The proposed restriction is then to be assessed from the point of view of the principle of proportionality - the findings of the Constitutional Court in cases sp. zn. Pl. Pl. ÚS 4 / 94 (published under No. 214 / 1994 Coll.; published in the Reports of the Decision, Volume 2, Found No. 46), Pl.

In this way, it must be said that the restriction in question enables the objective pursued, which is to respect the legitimate public interest in the existence of social, educational and health facilities (criterion of suitability or the principle of eligibility for the purpose). The criterion of necessity as an additional component of the principle of proportionality then arises from the very need for continuous maintenance (over a certain period of time) of these establishments, including taking into account the fundamental right enshrined in Article 31 of the Charter. Also, when assessing the severity of the two protected values, the restriction does not appear to be disproportionate in terms of content and, in the light of the generally acceptable and shared hierarchy of values, it cannot be rejected absolutely in the context. However, its time limit should only be determined by a relatively short transitional period, in which the necessary knowledge should be obtained enabling the acquired property to be dealt with in a responsible manner according to the owner's own discretion, i.e. the relevant USC. Ten-year period limited to injury to the basic right guaranteed by Article 11 (1) However, the Charter appears to be manifestly disproportionate to the intended objective, since it already limits that right to such a degree that, by its negative consequences - for its time-honored "temporary" - it goes beyond the positive effects of monitoring the public interest. The proportionality criterion in the contested provisions is thus clearly not met in the light of the principle of proportionality. In relation to the constitutional requirement of the examination of the substance and the meaning of the restricted property right (Article 4 (4) of the Charter), the case under consideration is affected by the right to use and dispose of the property in the sense of disposal for a period of 10 years, when, by reference to the above, the solution adopted cannot be considered as an adequate principle of proportionality as regards its time-frame, and therefore shows signs of unconstitutionality. The legal framework of § 3 and § 6 of Law No 290 / 2002 Coll. clearly deviates from the limits and aspects of the admissibility of the interference in property law, since the ten-year period of that limitation does not appear adequate in the context, taking into account all aspects of the issue under consideration.

Therefore, in relation to the contested (temporary) restriction of property rights, it is not possible, on the one hand, to overlook its precisely established, certain, equal and therefore constitutionally acceptable conditions (11 (1) of the Charter, Article 1 (1) of the Constitution), but the Constitutional Court is, on the other hand, convinced that, with the requirement of Article 4 (4), The Charter can only correspond to such legislation as would impose such a restriction only to the extent strictly necessary, which can only be understood as a minimum period of time, which is clearly prima facie a "transitional" period.

The Constitutional Court therefore concludes that the restriction of property rights in the provisions of Sections 3 and 6 of Law No 290 / 2002 Coll. does not fulfil the conditions of the limitation of the fundamental right in relation to all the principles of proportionality required by the components and therefore those provisions for their contradiction with Article 4 (4) in conjunction with 11 (1) of the Charter (§ 70 (1) of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll., as amended). However, it postponed the feasibility of the finding in this part until 31 December 2003 so that Parliament of the Czech Republic would have sufficient space to set a new deadline.