The Constitutional Court found No. 239 / 2016 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 15 March 2016 sp. zn.
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
27.07.2016
239
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
The Constitutional Court decided under sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 30 / 15 on 15 March 2016 in plenary composed of the President of the Court of Paul Rychetský and Judges Louis David, Jaroslav Fenyk, Josef Fiale, Jan Filip, Jaromír Jirsy (Judge of the Rapporteur), Tomáš Lichovník, Radovana Sukhanek, Kateřina Šimáková, Vojtěho Šimíček, David Uhíř and Jiří Zemánek as party to the motion of the Group 38 Senators of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, represented by JUDr. Hana Marvan, a lawyer, based in Prague 1, Maltézné Square 12, on the annulment of the provisions of § 11a paragraph 1 (b) of the Parliament of the Czech Republic as party to the Czech Republic as a party to the proceedings and Government as a subsidiary, on the proposal of the group 38 of the Senate of the Senate of the Senate, represented by the Chamber of the Chamber of the Chamber of the Chamber of the Chamber of the Chamber of the Chamber of the Czech Republic, represented
as follows:
The proposal to abolish the provisions of Paragraph 11a (1) (b) of Act No. 334 / 1992 Coll., on the Protection of the Agricultural Soil Fund, as amended by Act No. 41 / 2015 Coll., in the words "State-owned ', is rejected.
Reasons
Application for annulment of the provisions of the law
1. By a proposal of 31 October 2015, which was delivered to the Constitutional Court on 2 November 2015, a group of 38 Senators of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic pursuant to Article 64 (1) (b) of the Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, within the meaning of Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (Constitutional Act No. 1 / 1993 Coll., the Constitution of the Czech Republic, as amended by the later constitutional laws, hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"), the Constitutional Court seeks to repeal the provisions of Article 11a (1) (b) of the Act No. 334 / 1992 Coll., on the Protection of the Agricultural Land Fund, as amended by the laws, "in the State," the first day of the sixth calendar month following the declaration of the Act.
2. Under Article 11 (1) of Act No. 334 / 1992 Coll., on the Protection of the Agricultural Soil Fund, as amended by Act No. 41 / 2015 Coll., hereinafter referred to as "the Act on the Protection of the Agricultural Soil Fund ', the person who has been authorised to intend to withdraw the agricultural land from the Agricultural Soil Fund shall be obliged to pay for the withdrawn agricultural land a levy at the level set out in the Annex thereto.
3. The appellant is convinced that the contested provision is contrary to the principle of equality and the prohibition of discrimination under Articles 1, 3 (1) and 4 (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (published under No 2 / 1993 Coll., as amended by Constitutional Law No. 162 / 1998 Coll., hereinafter referred to as "the Charter '); In its view, it also constitutes an intervention in the protection of property pursuant to Article 11 (1) of the Charter, in the case of infrastructure, which is property within the meaning of paragraph 2 of that Article, the property of which is reserved by law. The appellant points out that it does not seek a general exemption from the payment of charges for all infrastructure constructions - namely, special purpose communications are not regularly served by the public but by the private interest; It therefore proposes a deferral of the enforceability of the annulment of the finding in such a way that the legislator is free to adopt an adjustment consistent with the constitutional order.
4. The contested provision was incorporated into the Act by amendment - Act No. 41 / 2015 Coll. with effect from 1 April 2015. Its unconstitutional character is seen by the appellant in the fact that it constitutes an exception to the obligation to pay the levy for the permanent withdrawal of agricultural land from the agricultural land-use infrastructure fund, which, however, applies exclusively to state-owned communications. On the other hand, it maintains the obligation to pay charges for communications owned by regions and municipalities, even if they are subject to the same treatment, serves the same purpose and enjoys the same status from a public interest point of view.
5. The appellant does not question the constitutionality of the legislative process - however, it has already referred to the deficits of the contested provision. The Government Bill No. 41 / 2015 Coll. was returned to the Senate with an amendment to unify the regional and municipal communications regime with state communications, but the Chamber of Deputies remained on the original text.
Observation of the parties and the intervener
6. The Ombudsman, by letter dated 12 November 2015, informs the Constitutional Court that, pursuant to Article 69 (3) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, does not enter into proceedings.
7. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, in its observations on the proposal of 3 December 2015, states that the decision on the constitutionality of the part of the provision in question leaves it to the Constitutional Court. The content focuses on the legislative process of adopting Act No. 41 / 2015 Coll.; states that the draft amendment was submitted to the Senate by the Chamber of Deputies on 17 December 2014. The Organising Committee, as Senate Press No. 17 (10th term of office 2014- 2016), ordered it to discuss the Committee on Territorial Development, Public Administration and the Environment as the Guarantee Committee and the Committee on Economic, Agricultural and Transport. The Guarantee Committee discussed the draft law at a meeting held on 8 January 2015 and adopted Resolution No 13 (Press No. 17 / 1), which recommended that it be returned to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments, inter alia, to extend the exceptions provided for in Section 11a (1) (b) of the Act on the Protection of the Agricultural Soil Fund and to the construction of infrastructure owned by regions and municipalities. The same procedure was also proposed by the Committee on Economy, Agriculture and Transport at the hearing held on 13 January 2015 by Resolution No 37 (Press No 17 / 2).
8. The Senate adopted in vote No 32 at the 5th session of the 10th term of office held on 14 January 2015, in which of the 59 senators and senators present were 52 in favour and no one opposed, Resolution No 79, by which the proposal was returned to the Lower Chamber with amendments, inter alia, to amend the contested provision; However, the Chamber of Deputies remained on the original text. Subsequently, the law was passed to the President of the Republic, who signed it on 24 February 2015, then declared in the Collection of Laws. A rather extensive debate was held on the draft law at the meeting of the committees, where it was mentioned that the regulation proposed by the Chamber of Deputies constituted unequal access to the owners of infrastructure, as it preferred the State over other owners. At the meeting of the Senate plenary on this subject, Senator Radko Martínek, in particular, spoke as a guarantee rapporteur, who expressed concerns as to whether the proposed regulation would make it more difficult or even impossible to implement the construction of infrastructure owned by regions and municipalities, in particular bypasses of residential services.
9. The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, in its observations on the proposal of 4 December 2015, states that the law was adopted by a constitutional procedure; Notes that it is up to the Constitutional Court to examine the question of the unconstitutionality of the contested provision. The Chamber of Deputies also focuses on the course of the legislative process. The government bill was circulated to Members on 8 October 2014 as House Press No. 339 (7th term since 2013). The first reading took place on 21 October 2014, the proposal being directed to a total of four committees, namely the Environment Committee, the Agricultural Committee, the Public Administration and Regional Development Committee and the Economic Committee. The Committee on Agriculture debated the proposal on 30 October 2014 and 12 November 2014 and adopted resolution No 339 / 2, the Economic Committee discussed it on 20 November 2014 and adopted resolution No 339 / 3, the Committee on Public Administration and Regional Development discussed the proposal on 11 November 2014 (Resolution No 339 / 4) and the Environment Committee discussed it on 26 November 2014 and the resolution No 339 / 5.
10. The Chamber of Deputies also states that the second reading of the draft law took place on 5 December 2014 and the amendments were processed as print No 339 / 6. The contested provision is based on the Government's draft law, which has not been tabled amendments to it in committee negotiations or in the debate; Stresses that the Government noted in the explanatory memorandum the compliance of the proposed regulation with the constitutional order. The third reading took place on 12 December 2014, the proposal was approved by the Chamber of Deputies as amended and subsequently referred to the Senate. The resolution returning the proposal to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments was circulated to Members on 16 January 2015 as House Press No. 339 / 8. The House renegotiated it at its 25th meeting on 10 February 2015 and agreed to the draft law in its original version.
11. In its submission of 9 December 2015, the Government of the Constitutional Court informed the Constitutional Court that, by order of 7 December 2015 No 1013, it had decided to intervene pursuant to Article 69 (2) of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended. In its observations on the application submitted to the Court on 10 December 2015, the Government proposes to reject the application. It does not share the appellant's belief that the contested provision discriminates between regions and municipalities against the State; notes the importance of protecting the agricultural land fund, the reason for which the land can be withdrawn, inter alia, in the public interest in the development of the State's transport infrastructure. The exemption from the levy is considered to be constitutionally conformal - including the contested exemption under Section 11a (1) (b) of the Agricultural Land Fund Protection Act. It believes that the provision referred to will also stand in terms of the principle of equality and non-discrimination, as there are objective and reasonable reasons for it, in the public interest, to accelerate the construction of strategic backbone communications. The annulment of the contested part of the provision would entail the exemption of all infrastructure from the obligation to pay the levy, including special-purpose roads and non-public ones, such as storage and parking spaces.
Dedication and content of the contested provision
12. Paragraph 11a (1) (b) of the Act on the Protection of the Agricultural Soil Fund (NB: as amended by 27.6.2016) reads:
(1) The levy on permanently withdrawn land shall not be fixed if the agricultural land is withdrawn from the agricultural land fund for:
(b) construction of infrastructure owned by the State (35), including its components and accessories;
35) Article 9 (1) of Act No. 13 / 1997 Coll., on Road, as amended by Act No. 132 / 2000 Coll. '
13. The appellant seeks the annulment of the provisions in the words "State-owned."
14. The contested provision provides for an exemption from the obligation to pay the levy on the permanent withdrawal of agricultural land from the agricultural land fund for infrastructure construction, which applies exclusively to state-owned roads, that is to say, motorways and first-class roads within the meaning of the first sentence of § 9 (1) of Act No. 13 / 1997 Coll., on roads, as amended by Act No. 132 / 2000 Coll., hereinafter referred to as the "Road Transport Act '. On the other hand, the contrario lays down an obligation to pay charges for the construction of infrastructure II and III, which, according to the second sentence of the same provision, are owned by the regions, and the construction of local roads owned by municipalities.
15. The owner of special-purpose roads is a legal or natural person pursuant to § 9 (1) of the Third Road Act. The appellant points out that there is no exemption from the obligation to pay the levy in respect of special-purpose communications and, on the contrary, believes that the obligation to pay the levy should be maintained; the government also points out this aspect of the matter.
The applicant's active legitimacy and management conditions
16. Under Article 64 (1) (b) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, an application for annulment of the law or its individual provisions within the meaning of Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution is entitled to be lodged by a group of at least 17 Senators. The condition of active procedural legitimacy was fulfilled as a group of 38 Senators submitted the proposal, with a signature document attached to it within the meaning of Section 64 (5) of the Constitutional Court Act, to which each Senator individually confirmed that it was attached.
17. The proposal contains all the legal requirements required, it is not inadmissible within the meaning of Section 66 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., and there are no grounds for termination of the procedure under Section 67 of the same Act.
Legislative procedure for the adoption of the contested provision
18. The Constitutional Court first examined, in terms of Article 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., whether Paragraph 11 (1) (b) and Act No. 41 / 2015 Coll. was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution established competence and constitutional requirements. It concluded that nothing could be expressed in that regard, while neither the appellant, other parties nor the intervener indicated any deficiencies in the legislative process. On the contrary, the appellant expressly states that it does not question the constitutionality of the legislative process. The Constitutional Court for Brief points to the course of the legislative process, as described in the above-mentioned statements of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic.
Meritorious review of the proposal
19. The Constitutional Court has concluded within the meaning of Paragraph 70 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court that there are no grounds for the annulment of the contested provision of the Law; Decided on a proposal without a regulation of oral proceedings as it did not carry out the taking of evidence and in the intent of § 44 of the First Law No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, further clarification of the case cannot be expected.
The nature and purpose of the legislation
20. The Constitutional Court generally points out to the nature and purpose of the legislation in question that the adjustment of the levy on the withdrawal of land from the agricultural land fund is a specific issue which constitutes an essential measure for the protection of the agricultural land fund as the basic natural resources of our country, an irreplaceable means of production, and one of the main elements of the environment (§ 1 (1) of Act No. 334 / 1992 Coll., on the protection of the agricultural land fund, § 2 of Act No. 17 / 1992 Coll., on the environment).
21. The legislation on the protection of the agricultural land fund is a key means of implementing the constitutional order of the Reglemented Protection of Natural Wealth; as referred to in Article 7 The Constitution is obliged by the State to ensure that natural resources are used in a gentle manner and that natural wealth is protected. At the level of constitutional order, Article 11 (3) of the Charter follows the second and third sentences of Article 11 (3), according to which the exercise of property rights must not be prejudicial to nature and the environment above the level laid down by the law, and Article 35 of the Charter - according to its first paragraph, everyone has the right to a favourable environment and, under the third paragraph, no one may threaten or harm the environment, natural resources or species wealth of nature above the level laid down by the law.
22. In the case of contributions pursuant to § 11 et seq. of Act No. 334 / 1992 Coll., on the Protection of the Agricultural Soil Fund, as amended, it is not a cash transaction with the character of the tax (§ 2 (3) of Act No. 280 / 2009 Coll., Tax Code), but a specific form of remuneration designed to regulate the extent (area) of the land withdrawn from the Agricultural Soil Fund. However, the bulk of the 55% levy revenue is the income of the state budget - to this extent, the contested regulation should be seen as part of the budgetary prerogatives (privileges and fisci) and, moreover, as a means which the State would ultimately be obliged to pay itself in a substantial way. According to the legal situation prior to the adoption of the amendment in question, the share of the State budget in the contributions pursuant to § 11 (2) sentence of the fourth Act No. 334 / 1992 Coll., on the protection of the agricultural land fund, as amended by Act No. 402 / 2010 Coll., was even 75%. The rest of the contributions are invested back in the environment; 15% is the budget of the State Environmental Fund and 30% of the budget of the municipality in whose territory the withdrawn agricultural land is located. The payments which are the income of the municipality's budget can then only be used to improve the environment in the municipality and to protect and restore nature and landscape (Section 11b (5) of the Agricultural Soil Fund Act).
23. Act No 500 / 2004 Coll., the Administrative Rules, as amended, and the specific amount of the levy shall apply to the procedure for the withdrawal of land from the Agricultural Soil Fund and the specific amount of the levy shall be determined in accordance with the schedule of contributions - Annex to Act No 334 / 1992 Coll., on the protection of the Agricultural Soil Fund, as amended. Withdrawal and the establishment of the levy shall be decided by the authority of the protection of the agricultural land fund, which at first instance is the local authority of the municipality with extended competence, the Regional Office or the Ministry of the Environment or the administration of the national park, depending on the area of the land concerned (up to 1 ha, up to 10 ha or above 10 ha, Sections 15, 17 and 17a of Act No. 334 / 1992 Coll., on the protection of the agricultural land fund, as amended).
24. The general argument against the exemption from payment of the levy may be that, for a particular constellation, the withdrawal and establishment of the levy are decided by the body in whose administrative district the largest part of the agricultural land to be withdrawn from the agricultural land fund and at the same time as the withdrawal is carried out. However, this argument did not lead the Constitutional Court to reject the application because it can only apply to a limited number of cases where the Land Protection Authority operates with a municipality with extended jurisdiction or county as owner of the land whose removal is required or cases of jurisdiction of the Ministry of State-owned property withdrawal proceedings. In addition, the authority of the protection of the agricultural land fund is subject to the powers of the appellate administrative authority and the powers of the authorities of the protection of the agricultural land fund are exercised in the delegated scope (Section 18a of Act No. 334 / 1992 Coll., on the protection of the agricultural land fund, as amended), while the treatment of the land concerned is generally carried out separately.
Equality and prohibition of discrimination vs. the protection of natural wealth
25. In assessing the case, the Constitutional Court came out of its numerous caselaw on the principle of equality and conditions of unequal treatment between different groups or categories of persons. In the finding of 21.1.2003 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 15 / 02 (N 11 / 29 SbNU 79; 40 / 2003 Coll.; all decisions listed here are available at http: / / nalus.ujud.cz), he explained that equality is a category relative, conceptually requiring the removal of unjustified differences. A breach of the principle of equality needs to be treated differently with different entities in the same or comparable situation, without, however, having objective and reasonable grounds for such an approach. It is normally based on an infringement of another fundamental right, such as the right to own property pursuant to Article 11 of the Charter [the findings of the Constitutional Court of 7.6.1995 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 4 / 95 (N 29 / 3 SbNU 209; 168 / 1995 Coll.) and of 8.11.1995 sp. zn. ÚS 5 / 95 (N 74 / 4 SbNU 205; 6 / 1996 Coll.)]. From the current case-law, e.g. the findings of 8.10.2015 sp. zn. III. ÚS 880 / 15, of 10.7.2014 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 31 / 13 (N 138 / 74 SbNU 141; 162 / 2014 Coll.) or of 15.5.2012 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 17 / 11 (N 102 / 65 SbNU 367; 220 / 2012 Coll.).
26. In this context, it should be pointed out that the counties and municipalities may rely solely on the intervention in accesorial equality provided for in Article 3 (1) of the Charter, i.e. equality in relation to the implementation of another fundamental right or freedom. On the contrary, they do not benefit from non-accesoric equality in terms of universal equality before the law; as referred to in Article 1 Only people, i.e. individuals as dignified human beings, enjoy the Charter. The Constitutional Court, for example, in its decision of 28.3.2006 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 42 / 03 (N 72 / 40 SbNU 703; 280 / 2006 Coll.) or in its resolution of 15.1.2014 sp. zn. I. ÚS 2006 / 12; to examine the inequality between municipalities (in this case between small municipalities and large cities as a result of the budgetary determination of taxes) in its decision of 20.11.2007 (Pl. ÚS 50 / 06 (N 196 / 47 SbNU 557; 18 / 2008 Sb.).
27. In addition to the appellant of the principle of equality and non-discrimination, however, the main role of the State's commitment to ensure that natural resources and the protection of natural wealth are used in an assessment of the matter, as enshrined in Article 7 of the Constitution. The interpretation of this provision was dealt with by the Constitutional Court, for example, in the finding of 21 November 2007 sp. zn. IV. ÚS 652 / 06 (N 202 / 47 CollNU 613), which concluded that the restriction of property rights pursuant to § 60 (1) of Act No. 254 / 2001 Coll., on the water and the amendment of certain laws (Water Act), as amended by Act No. 150 / 2010 Coll., consisting of the obligation of landowners to allow entry and entry to their land to the necessary extent, will be achieved by the measurement of conflicting fundamental rights or public goods. He explained that environmental protection, the integral part of which is the operation and maintenance of water works, is a public good whose interest can be restricted by the constitutionally protected fundamental right of ownership within the meaning of Article 11 (4) of the Charter.
28. In the finding of 13.12.2006 sp. zn. The Constitutional Court stressed that the State had set itself the objective of protecting natural wealth, with the seriousness of this protection being underlined by the fact that the protection of natural values was regulated directly in the Constitution. In the decision of 10.7.1997 sp. zn. III. ÚS 70 / 97 (N 96 / 8 SbNU 375), the Constitutional Court, based on the premise that the environment is a public good (value) within the meaning of the preamble to the Constitution and the Charter and Article 7 of the Constitution, and following the conclusions of the finding of 9.10.1996 sp. (Pl. ÚS 15 / 96 (N 99 / 6 SbNU 213; 280 / 1996 Coll.), addressed a distinction of fundamental rights and freedoms and public goods. He stated that a certain aspect of human existence became public good on condition that it could not be conceptually, factually and legally broken down into parts and assigned to individuals as shares; it does not display an element of distributivity.
Self-examination of the contested provision
29. Paragraph 11a (1) (b) of the Law on the protection of the agricultural land fund, which favours the State over other persons, provides for an exemption from the payment of the levy on the permanent withdrawal of agricultural land from the agricultural land fund exclusively for the construction of state-owned infrastructure, as opposed to regions and municipalities, or private persons, i.e. entities which are obliged to pay the levy on their own infrastructure.
30. The Constitutional Court has concluded that a specific examination of whether, as a result of the contested provision, the principle of equality and non-discrimination referred to in Article 3 (1) of the Charter, or the protection of property law and the extent of its limitation within the meaning of Article 11 (1) and (2) in conjunction with Article 4 (3) of the Charter, is impeded by another serious interest, namely the commitment of the State to ensure the prudent use of natural resources and to protect the natural wealth referred to in Article 7 of the Constitution. In fact, if the Constitutional Court had annulled the contested provision, it would have substantially extended the scope of the exemptions from the payment of State-owned infrastructure charges to all infrastructure, i.e. both State-owned, regional or municipal owned and private owned. The appellant requests the annulment of Paragraph 11a (1) (b) of the Act on the Protection of the Agricultural Soil Fund solely in the words "State-owned ', and a petition decision would therefore entail the provision of an exemption from payment of the levy for all construction of infrastructure without distinction.
31. Compliance with the proposal would constitute an important step in the basic mission of Act No. 334 / 1992 Coll., on the Protection of the Agricultural Soil Fund, as amended, building on the fact that the Agricultural Soil Fund is the basic natural wealth of our country, an irreplaceable means of production enabling agricultural production and one of the main environmental components (§ 1 (1) of Act No. 334 / 1992 Coll., on the Protection of the Agricultural Soil Fund). According to the second sentence of the same provision, its protection, enhancement and rational use are activities which ensure the protection and improvement of the environment, thereby making a significant contribution to the State's commitment to the conservation of natural resources under Article 7 of the Constitution. If the Constitutional Court had complied with the application, it would have acted in breach of the requirement of Article 7 of the Constitution as well as its fundamental task and status as a judicial authority for the protection of constitutionality (Article 83 of the Constitution).
32. The Constitutional Court is bound by the petition by which the appellant requests only the annulment of the contested provision in the words "State-owned," not the abolition of the whole point (b), i.e. the comprehensive exemption from the payment of the contributions to infrastructure, which could be regarded as a much more favourable solution from the point of view of the protection of the agricultural land fund or the protection of natural property (this was also the case in law before the adoption of the amendment by Act No. 41 / 2015 Coll., i.e. the modification effective until 31.3.2015). However, the appellant seeks a petition to address the opposite, i.e. to extend the exemption from the payment of contributions, in addition to the State, to the local authorities - and not only to them in the event of a derogatory intervention by the Constitutional Court.
33. Although the Constitutional Court is also aware that there is at present another amendment to the Act on the Protection of the Agricultural Soil Fund in the legislative process, including the amendment of the revised provision of Paragraph 11a, it does not consider it appropriate to wait for the outcome of that process. The main reason for the decision of the Constitutional Court is the protection of the agricultural land fund, on which the amendment to the Act on the protection of the agricultural land fund, which would effectively eliminate the alleged discrimination by the appellant, would not change anything.
34. It cannot change anything in the above assessment, but the argument of the appellant itself contributes to it - that its aim is not to achieve a general exemption from the payment of charges on all infrastructure constructions. The appellant points out that, in particular, special purpose communications, which, according to the third sentence of Paragraph 9 (1) of the Road Act, are owned by legal or natural persons, are not regularly serving the public interest but primarily the private interest. As the Government also points to this aspect of the case in its observations on the proposal, the repeal of the provisions in the contested part would, inter alia, entail exemption from the payment of contributions for special-purpose communications within the meaning of Article 7 of Act No. 13 / 1997 Coll., on road transport, as amended, serving the needs of owners of adjacent properties such as office buildings, commercial centres and other premises used for business or for the management of agricultural and forestry land. It would even apply to publicly inaccessible special purpose communications, such as weaning or parking areas located in closed areas and subject to use as decided by the owner.
35. This consequence of possible compliance with the proposal could not be corrected by simply delaying the enforceability of the annulled finding within the meaning of § 70 (1) in conjunction with § 58 (1) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., so that the legislator would have the scope to adopt a new constitutional conformal regulation. Even if the Constitutional Court could postpone the enforceability of the finding and create the necessary time space for legislators, it could not anticipate and influence that the legislator would actually take advantage of this possibility and, in the meantime, adopt a new regulation - one that is consistent with the constitutional order, including Article 7 of the Constitution and the state's commitment to the protection of natural wealth. The Constitutional Court, in its capacity as (exclusively) a negative legislator, does not have any means of ensuring that appropriate new legislation is adopted, and any failure to adopt it would result in a legal situation that would be strongly opposed to the protection of the environment and of natural wealth.
36. The above fact also contributes to the assessment of the case that, although payments for the permanent withdrawal of agricultural land from the agricultural land fund do not constitute cash transactions with the character of the tax, the bulk of the income of the agricultural land is nevertheless the income of the State budget. In this respect, the contributions for the withdrawal of land from the agricultural land fund should be seen as fiscal income and the contested legislation as part of the prerogatives and fisci (budgetary prerogatives), an area characterised by an increased discrepancy of the State in the formation of its own management, in respect of which the Constitutional Court is called upon to exercise very restraint and intervene only on serious grounds for such a procedure. In addition, it is a means which the State would ultimately be obliged to pay itself in a substantial way.
37. For the sake of completeness, a modified proportionality test in the sense of the exclusion of extreme disproportionality, which has become part of a constant case-law of the Constitutional Court on the review of the constitutionality of the tax legislation, the fee, or other similar statutory mandatory levies, as well as cash penalties [for example, the findings of 30 June 2015 sp. zn. Pl. Pl. ÚS 24 / 14 (187 / 2015 Coll.), of 21.4.2009 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 29 / 08 (N 89 / 53 SbNU 125; 181 / 2009 Coll.), of 18.8.2004 sp. Pl. ÚS 7 / 03 (N 113 / 34 SbNU 165; 512 / 2004 Sb.)]. However, given the above, the conditions for its application to the present case have not been laid down.
Conclusion
38. On the basis of the above, the Constitutional Court has concluded that there are no grounds for the annulment of the contested provision of Paragraph 11a (1) (b) of the Law on the Protection of the Agricultural Soil Fund in the words "State-owned 'and rejected the proposal under Paragraph 70 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v. r.
In accordance with Article 14 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, the Court of First Instance adopted a separate opinion on the decision of the full Judge David Halič.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found no. 239 / 2016 Coll., on the application for annulment of part of the provision of § 11a (1) (b) of Act No. 334 / 1992 Coll., on the Protection of the Agricultural Soil Fund, as amended by Act No. 41 / 2015 Coll. |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 27.07.2016 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0