The Constitutional Court found no 234 / 1999 Coll.
The Constitutional Court's finding of 22 September 1999 on the application for annulment of Paragraph 13 (2) of the First Law No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the treatment of property relations with land and other agricultural property, as amended, and Paragraph 13 (5) of that Law in the words "which was not an authorised person only until 31 January 1993 or 1 September 1993"
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
26.10.1999
234
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Czech Republic
On 22 September 1999, the Constitutional Court decided, in plenary, on a proposal by M. S. and JUDr. V. on the annulment of § 13 (2) of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the modification of property relations with land and other agricultural property, as amended, and § 13 (5) of the same law in words "which were not only authorised until 31 January 1993 or 1 September 1993 ', as follows:
Motion denied.
Reasons
The applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court against the judgment of the Regional Court in Ústí nad Labem of 24 June 1998 No 16 Ca 452 / 97-30 confirming the decision of the Regional Office in Litoměřice of 17 July 1997 No 72-1513 / 97- 8119. By this decision, the appellants did not renew the property ownership right in the cation. territory of R. He justified his decision by not complying with the conditions of § 4 (1) of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the treatment of property relations with land and other agricultural property, as amended ("the Land Act '). Under this provision and taking into account Article 13 of the Land Act, the beneficiary is entitled to issue real estate if he was a citizen of the Czech Republic on 31 January or 1 September 1993. This opinion is based on the wording of the amendment to the Act on Soil No 30 / 1996 Coll., according to which the right to issue real estate pursuant to § 6 may be exercised by the beneficiary, provided that by 31 January 1993 or 1 September 1993 it was not an authorised person solely because it did not fulfil the requirement of permanent residence.
JUDr. V. V., originally a national of the Czech Republic, ceased Czech citizenship on 15 December 1958, i.e. the date of acquisition of US citizenship, on the basis of the Convention on Naturalisation between Czechoslovakia and the United States No. 169 / 1929 Coll. Czech citizenship was re-acquired on 7 June 1994 by grant pursuant to § 7 of Act No. 40 / 1993 Coll., on the Acquisition and Absence of Citizenship of the Czech Republic, as amended.
M. S., originally Czechoslovak National Citizenship, renounced the Czech citizenship on the date of acquisition of US citizenship, i.e. on 8 November 1960, on the basis of the Convention on Naturalisation between Czechoslovakia and the United States No. 169 / 1929 Coll. Czech citizenship was acquired on 11 May 1994 by grant pursuant to § 7 of Act No. 40 / 1993 Coll., as amended.
In the view of the Regional Property Office in Litoměřice, the facts concerning the expiry and acquisition of citizenship are demonstrated by the Communication of the Ministry of the Interior of 18 March 1996 No II / s- OSOM / 53 / 7880 / 93,7877 / 93 and by the documents concerning the granting of citizenship of the Czech Republic No VS / 2- 53 / 7880 / 93- 2176 and No II / s- OSOM / 53 / 53 / 7877 / 93- 558.
The appellants appealed against the Land Authority's decision. The Regional Court in Ústí nad Labem has examined the contested decision and the proceedings before it and has concluded that the appeal is not justified. The Court of First Instance held that the appellants were the original owners of the properties in question, which were transferred to the Czech State during the relevant period for reasons which could be substitutable to the provisions of Paragraph 6 (1) of the Soil Act. He also considered it to be proven that the applicants had lost their Czech citizenship. The re-acquisition of citizenship of the Czech Republic took place at M. S. on 11 May 1994 and at JUDr. V. on 7 June 1994.
The Regional Court in Ústí nad Labem assessed the case in such a way that the applicants did not have the status of authorised persons, having regard to the fact that they did not fulfil the condition of citizenship of the Czech Republic within the period laid down for the application of the restitution rights under the Land Act, i.e. until 31 January 1993. The content of Section 4 of the Soil Act, as a result of amendments to the amendment, has been recognised by deleting the condition of permanent residence, but the condition which the beneficiary must fulfil remains citizenship. The basic period for the application of the restitution rights was fixed until 31 January 1993. At that time, a particular person had to comply with the legal conditions to be considered an authorised person.
The appellants did not agree with the procedure of the public authorities. They argued that they both obtained citizenship of the Czech Republic by granting pursuant to § 7 paragraph 1 of Act No. 40 / 1993 Coll., in 1994. They pointed out that they were both citizens of the Czech Republic and were citizens of the Czech Republic at the time of the effectiveness of Act No. 30 / 1996 Coll., amending and supplementing Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the modification of property relations with land and other agricultural property, as amended, and Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll., which regulates certain issues relating to Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the modification of property relations with land and other agricultural property, as amended, as amended by Act No. 93 / 1992 Coll. In their view, that law discriminated against the appellants as citizens because it deprived them of the right to claim the restitution of the property which had been wrongfully withdrawn from them by the Communist regime. Only those who have re-acquired the citizenship of the Czech Republic by 31 January 1993 or by 1 September 1993 are entitled to this right under Act No. 30 / 1996 Coll..
In the justification of their proposal to repeal certain provisions of the Land Act, the appellants argued that the principle of retroactive effect was applied in the Act when it removed the obstacle to the permanent residence shortage only at a time when it was no longer possible to correct another obstacle concerning the Czech Republic's lack of citizenship on the effective date of Act No. 30 / 1996 Coll.
In the appellants' view, these two obstacles of a personal nature for the beneficiaries did not act independently in their restitution. They state that the Czech emigrants in the USA, who had lost their Czechoslovak citizenship by the 1929 naturalisation convention, did not acquire any right to restitution under the Soil Act until Law No. 30 / 1996 Coll. was effective. Until then, there was an obstacle to the lack of permanent residence on the territory of the Czech Republic and, therefore, they did so for reasons other than restitution. The appellants argued that they could not have known that the obstacle to the permanent residence shortage would be cancelled after two years with retroactive effect by the finding of the Constitutional Court No 29 / 1996 Coll. and by Law No 30 / 1996 Coll. after the expiry of all restitution periods. It was only by law No. 30 / 1996 Coll. that the issue of the acquisition of citizenship of the Czech Republic became topical for the appellants, but the possibility of meeting this assumption was no longer available on 31 January 1993 or 1 September 1993. While the legal presumption of permanent residence is interpreted negatively, i.e. it is waived, so that no activity of the beneficiary is required to fulfil it, citizenship is the opposite. The interested citizen must submit an application to the competent public authority of the Czech Republic and in addition ask for an exemption from the provisions of § 7 of Act No. 40 / 1993 Coll. This assumes that he is familiar with Act No. 40 / 1993 Coll.. The situation of the appellants is considerably more difficult by living at a considerable distance from the Washington administration centre, where there are representative offices, including the Czech Embassy, where they could obtain the necessary information.
Furthermore, the appellants claimed that Article 5 and Article 11 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter ') had been infringed in the present case, as well as Article 14 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (" the Convention'). The appellants see the unconstitutionality in certain provisions of Act No. 30 / 1996 Coll., which contradict both the logic of the case and the finding of the Constitutional Court No. 29 / 1996 Coll. Therefore, together with the constitutional complaint, the appellants submitted a proposal for the annulment of § 13 (2) of the first Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the modification of property relations with land and other agricultural property, as amended, and § 13 (5) of the same law in the words "which was not only authorised until 31 January 1993 or 1 September 1993."
The Senate of the Constitutional Court, pursuant to Article 78 (1) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, suspended the procedure and referred the application for annulment of certain provisions of the Law on the Land of Plenum to the decision pursuant to Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, by virtue of Article 78 (1) of the Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., since the public authorities relied on their decisions on the contested provisions of the Act.
The President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, in his observations on the proposal for the annulment of certain provisions of the Land Act, stated that the Constitutional Court, by its decision of 13 December 1995, sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 8 / 95 (published under No 29 / 1996 Coll.), annulled, inter alia, the majority of the time limits laid down by Law 229 / 1991 Coll. and Law 243 / 1992 for the application of restitution claims. Since other special periods were not provided for in any other legislation, it was necessary to provide for a new pre-compulsory period so as to apply only to the group of beneficiaries defined by the Constitutional Court No 29 / 1996 Coll. The President of the Chamber of Deputies also stated that it follows from the explanatory note to Act No. 30 / 1996 Coll., that the purpose of this amendment was not to renew claims which had ceased to apply in accordance with the previous version of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll. At the same time, for reasons of legal certainty, provision had to be made for the termination of the original deadlines in Section 13 of the Act. By deleting the time limits for the exercise of the rights by finding the Constitutional Court without the subsequent amendment of the Law, the absence of time limits for the application of the new claims resulting from the finding would create a state of legal uncertainty in some of the ongoing proceedings as well as in the claims that had already had to be applied in the light of the original precarious deadlines.
One of the objectives of the Land Act is to mitigate the consequences of certain property injustices that occurred against owners of agricultural and forestry assets between 1948 and 1989. It is further stated that the frequency of areas of social life in which property and other injustices have been committed in our Republic, and the number of people affected, to a large extent, is determined by the possibility of comprehensive legislation, which would include correcting the consequences of all injustices.
The Constitutional Court, by decision of 13 December 1995, sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 8 / 95 annulled the condition of permanent residence in the Land Act. It did so following the legal opinion which was detailed in the statement of reasons for the Constitutional Court's finding of 12 July 1994 sp. zn. However, the condition concerning the existence of Czech citizenship at the relevant time has not been abolished and its preservation corresponds to international practice.
As regards the Charter, Article 5 provides that each person is eligible to have rights. From Article 11 (2) The Charter states that certain things can only be owned by citizens of the Czech Republic. The Complainants' appeal to those provisions does not regard the Chamber of Deputies as appropriate in view of the nature of the issue. It does not consider the contested legislation to be the object of the restriction of rights, but rather its protection. Nor is the objection of discrimination based on the above European Convention justified. As is apparent from the settled case-law of the Constitutional Court, it is for the State to decide, in order to ensure its functions, that it grants a group less benefits than others. This procedure must certainly not be entirely arbitrary. It is further noted that this has to happen only with reference to public values. In the present case, the public value or public interest is expressed in the preamble to the Land Act.
On this basis, it is concluded that, by adopting the appellants' proposal to delete certain provisions of the Land Act, the legal situation on the real estate restitution section would not have improved. According to the opinion of the Chamber of Deputies, the law adopted is in accordance with the Constitution of the Czech Republic, the constitutional order and our legal order.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the application was not justified.
The Constitutional Court has previously dealt with the question of whether, while mitigating the consequences of certain property injustices, the range of eligible entities can be narrowed by the condition of permanent residence, taking into account the principle of equality. In its case-law, it held that the scope for the exclusion of certain entities from the scope of those entities which fulfil the terms of the restitution title could not be inferred. In the opinion of the Constitutional Court, the number of beneficiaries may be limited only in accordance with Article 11 (2) of the Charter. According to this provision "the law may also provide that certain items may only be owned by citizens or legal persons established in the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic" (under Article 42 (1) of the Charter and Article 1 (2) of the Constitutional Act No. 4 / 1993 Coll., on measures related to the demise of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, the citizenship of the Czech Republic and the territory of the Czech Republic). The Constitutional Court therefore concluded that Article 11 (2) The Charter is a special provision on the constitutional principle of equality between all entities regarding the acquisition and protection of property rights, thereby creating a constitutional space for legislators to restrict the circle of beneficiaries in restitution legislation.
It follows from the case law of the Constitutional Court that the Constitutional Court had previously dealt with the question of the condition of citizenship of beneficiaries in the law on the restitution of property. It is clear from the finding of the Constitutional Court of 4 June 1997 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 33 / 96 that a similar issue has already been dealt with by the Constitutional Court in the context of the proposal to abolish the provision set out in § 3 (1) of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., on extrajudicial rehabilitation, as amended, in the words "if the State is a citizen of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic ', and to repeal the provision set out in § 3 (4) of the same Act by the words" if they are citizens of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic' (the decision was published under No. 185 / 1997 Coll.). The motion was rejected at the time.
Although there are different opinions on the subject under consideration, the Constitutional Court has assessed the case in such a way that Article 11 (2) of the Charter on the limitation of the property rights of stateless persons of the Czech Republic creates constitutional space. However, this provision needs to be interpreted strictly in the light of Article 4 (4) of the Charter, following the requirement to minimise any constitutionally acceptable restriction on fundamental right or freedom. Already in his finding of 4 June 1997 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 33 / 96 The Constitutional Court therefore pointed out that, in view of the legal design of the Act on non-judicial rehabilitation, which imposes financial compensation in the absence of an opportunity to issue the case, it is the legislator's job to seek a way to mitigate the consequences of injustices even for persons who did not have citizenship of the Czech Republic during the relevant period.
In view of the comparable importance and function of this condition in the Soil Act, the condition of citizenship in the Soil Act applies essentially to the same reasons that were given by the Constitutional Court in connection with the hearing of similar issues in Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll. The Constitutional Court understands the complainants' reservations that the legislature did not open the possibility of claiming even for persons who had citizenship on the date of the law's effectiveness. However, he is aware that the legislature respected precisely the abolition of the permanent residence requirement, as expressed by the Constitutional Court's finding, and, in view of legal stability, limited the effects of the new regulation to those persons who had not yet met this condition.
With this new constitutional complaint, the complainant's proposal aims to abolish the nationality condition retroactively for persons who have applied claims on the basis of the amendment to the Act on Soil No. 30 / 1996 Coll. The right to issue real estate under Section 6 of the Land Act would thus be acquired by persons who, in addition to failing to fulfil the residence requirement, did not fulfil the nationality requirement. These persons, too, could exercise their rights within six months of the date on which they could exercise this right for the first time. This would open a further period of six months from the date of the Constitutional Court's finding for all persons who did not fulfil the requirement of permanent residence and were therefore not eligible persons until 31 January and 1 September 1993 respectively, provided that they later acquired citizenship. However, as regards compensation for dead and living inventory under Section 20 of the Land Act, they could only do so until 31 December 1998, provided they had acquired Czech citizenship by then. The annulment of the provisions of Paragraph 13 (5) of the amendment to the Land Act No. 30 / 1996 Coll. was not proposed by the complainants. They also did not propose the repeal of the provision which states that "In the case referred to in Paragraph 6 (1) (a), the 18-month period shall begin to run only from the date of the legal authority of the decision which annulled the operative part, if it comes to this decision after 31 December 1998 '. In this case, it is a decision which abolishes the judgment on forfeiture or prevents a case.
The proposed interventions in the Land Act would open the way for a new phase of the restitution disputes of persons who have acquired Czech citizenship after the deadlines for claiming restitution rights, in a situation where, in many cases, new legal arrangements and new ownership relationships have already been established. Consequently, there would be a breach of the principle of legal certainty and a destabilisation of the rule of law, since the ownership acquired under the previous legislation is protected by Article 11 of the Charter. These circumstances also give rise to grounds for a different procedure for assessing the condition of citizenship acquired before the expiry of the time limits for the issue of real estate and in cases where citizenship was obtained only retrospectively. Notwithstanding this, the proposal to repeal Section 13 (5) of the Soil Act seeks the benefit of a specific constitutional complaint from complainants, but it also leaves the existing provisions in force for certain cases, thereby bringing new discriminatory elements into question. In addition, there would also be differences in the assessment of citizenship compared to restitutions under Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., where the Constitutional Court had previously rejected the elimination of the condition of citizenship.
When assessing the constitutionality of the contested provisions of law The Constitutional Court examined their compliance not only with constitutional laws but also with international treaties under Article 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic. In this context, it concerns, in particular, the compliance of the contested provisions of the Land Act with Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("the Covenant ') and Article 14 of the Convention. In this context, the Constitutional Court points again to the opinions expressed in the decision of 4 June 1997, sp. zn.
The United Nations Committee on Human Rights concluded in its Decisions of 19 July 1995 No 516 / 1992 and of 23 July 1996 No 586 / 1994 that there was no reason to justify the decision of the legislature to distinguish between victims of citizenship confiscation. While it considers the condition of citizenship to be incompatible with the prohibition of discrimination under Article 26 of the Pact, it does not, according to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights, require exactly the same treatment if there is sufficient reason for a different approach.
The European Commission on Human Rights then stated in its decisions on the restitution of property rights that interference in property law took place at a time when the Czech Republic (or Czechoslovakia) had not yet taken over guarantees for respect of human rights. Because discrimination under Article 14 The Convention is only possible in the context of an infringement of any other substantive right guaranteed by the Convention, it is not possible to deduct, in the case of a condition of citizenship and permanent residence under the restitution rules, a breach of the prohibition of discrimination. If there is no right to restitution of ownership under the Convention, they are, according to the European Commission on Human Rights, entirely in the hands of which state as sovereign.
As regards the appellants' objection to the fact that the principle of retroactive action is applied in the Soil Act, it must be based on the case law of the Constitutional Court (the finding of 12 July 1994 sp. zn. If there is any possibility of talking about retroactivity in restitution regulations, this is a retroactivity which is considered to be acceptable both in law theory and in practice.
The Constitutional Court has interpreted in a number of its decisions the content of the constitutional principle of equality. It follows from the settled case law of the Constitutional Court that it is for the State to decide, in order to ensure its functions, that it grants a group less benefits than others. This can only happen with reference to public values. Such public value is undoubtedly the principle of legal certainty, as intervening in new legal relationships would also signal a state of continued destabilization in the future, despite the creation of space for new and new disputes about the rights already acquired. The Constitutional Court also rejected the absolute understanding of the principle of equality, stating that "equality of citizens cannot be understood as an abstract category but as a relative equality '. It also points out that the United Nations Committee on Human Rights, in its repeated opinion, acknowledges the application of Article 26 A pact that fulfils the condition of the exclusion of arbitrarily or based on reasonable and objective distinguishing marks. As such, the Constitutional Court considers the consequences of Article 11 (2) of the Charter, as well as the objectives of the restitution legislation and, finally, the legislation on citizenship.
For all these reasons, the Constitutional Court was left with no exception to the application for annulment of Paragraph 13 (2) of the First Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the modification of property relations with land and other agricultural property, as amended, and Paragraph 13 (5) of the same Act in words "which were not only" rejected by the authorised person until 31 January 1993 or by 1 September 1993 (Paragraph 82 (1) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll.).
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found no 234 / 1999 Coll., on the application for annulment of Paragraph 13 (2) of the First Law No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the modification of property relations with land and other agricultural property, as amended, and Paragraph 13 (5) of the same Law in words "which were not only authorised by the person concerned until 31 January 1993 or 1 September 1993" |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 26.10.1999 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0