Found at the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic No. 24 / 1997 Coll.
The finding of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic concerning the application to abolish part of the provision of the Act No. 173 / 1990 Coll., repealing Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll., on the Organisation of Physical Education, and regulating certain other relations concerning voluntary body organisations, as amended by Act No. 247 / 1991 Coll., and the part of the provision of the Act No. 232 / 1991 Coll., on the conditions and method of the recovery of property rights arising from the Act No. 173 / 1990 Coll., which repeals Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll., on the organisation of physical education, and which regulates certain other relationships relating to voluntary physical establishments, as amended by the Act No. 312 / 1991 Coll.
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
27.02.1997
24
FIND
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic
On behalf of the Czech Republic
The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic decided on 10 December 1996 in plenary on the proposal of a group of Members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic for annulment
(a) the words "referred to in § 2 of Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll. until 31.12.1991" in § 2 of Act No. 173 / 1990 Coll., repealing Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll., on the Organisation of Physical Education and adjusting certain other issues concerning voluntary body organisations;
(b) the words "referred to in § 2 of Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll., on the organisation of physical education, until 31.12.1991" in § 1 (2) of the Act of the Czech National Council No. 232 / 1991 Coll., on the conditions and arrangements for the recovery of property rights arising from Act No. 173 / 1990 Coll., repealing Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll., on the organisation of physical education, and adjusting certain other questions concerning voluntary body organisations;
(c) the words "referred to in § 2 of Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll. until 31.12.1991" in § 2 of Act No. 247 / 1991 Coll., amending and supplementing Act No. 173 / 1990 Coll., repealing Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll., on the Organisation of Physical Education, and regulating certain other relationships concerning voluntary body organisations;
with the participation of the Parliament of the Czech Republic as a party to the proceedings and Unity Eagle Zlín-Malenovice, represented by JUDr. J. N., a lawyer in Zlín, as an intervener in the application for annulment of the words "referred to in § 2 of Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll. 'in § 2 of Act No. 173 / 1990 Coll.
as follows:
Motion denied.
Reasons
On 15 December 1995, a group of 43 Members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, under the authority of JUDr. Ing. Jiří Karas, submitted an application for annulment pursuant to Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic and Article 64 (1) (b) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court:
(a) the words "referred to in § 2 of Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll. until 31.12.1991" in § 2 of Act No. 173 / 1990 Coll., repealing Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll., on the Organisation of Physical Education and adjusting certain other issues concerning voluntary body organisations;
(b) the words "referred to in § 2 of Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll., on the organisation of physical education, until 31.12.1991" in § 1 (2) of the Act of the Czech National Council No. 232 / 1991 Coll., on the conditions and arrangements for the recovery of property rights arising from Act No. 173 / 1990 Coll., repealing Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll., on the organisation of physical education, and adjusting certain other questions concerning voluntary body organisations;
(c) the words "referred to in § 2 of Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll. until 31.12.1991" in § 2 of Act No. 247 / 1991 Coll., amending and supplementing Act No. 173 / 1990 Coll., repealing Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll., on the Organisation of Physical Education, and regulating certain other relationships concerning voluntary body organisations.
Given the content of the proposal and the relevant passages of the Collection of Laws The Constitutional Court considers that petit the motion should be rightly worded by abolishing:
1. the words "referred to in § 2 of Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll. until 31 December 1991" in § 2 of Act No. 173 / 1990 Coll., repealing Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll., on the Organisation of Physical Education and regulating certain other relations with voluntary body organisations, as amended by Act No. 247 / 1991 Coll.,
2. the words "referred to in § 2 of Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll., on the organisation of physical education, until 31 December 1991" in § 1 (2) of the Act of the Czech National Council No. 232 / 1991 Coll., on the conditions and arrangements for the recovery of property rights resulting from Act No. 173 / 1990 Coll., repealing Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll., on the organisation of physical education, and regulating certain other relations concerning voluntary physical organisations, as amended by the Act of the Czech National Council No. 312 / 1991 Coll.
The inaccuracy of the petition lies in the fact that, under points (a) and (c) of its proposal, the appellant asks for the annulment of one and the same, albeit amended, provision of the law and point (b) of the proposal, although the text of the contested provision quotes in its amended version, it is not apparent from the designation of the law that it was amended. Otherwise, however, the proposal is understandable and has all legal formalities and content and can be discussed and decided on in this form. Therefore, it was not necessary and expedient to draw the appellants' attention to defects of a proposal which are merely of a formal nature and are due to a degree of inconsistency from a legislative technical point of view and to call on them to be removed.
The Union of the Eagle Zlín-Malenovice lodged a constitutional complaint against the judgment of the Regional Court in Brno of 16 February 1995 sp. zn. 13 Co. 306 / 94, together with it pursuant to § 74 of Law No 182 / 1993 Coll. of the motion to abolish the words "referred to in § 2 of Law No. 68 / 1956 Coll. 'in § 2 of Law No 173 / 1990 Coll. By order of 6 February 1996, sp. zn. IV. ÚS 170 / 95, the proceedings for a constitutional complaint were suspended and the application for annulment of part of the legislation was referred to plenary pursuant to § 78 (1) of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll. By order of 16 February 1996, Pl. ÚS 2 / 96, the proposal was rejected in accordance with § 35 (2) of Law No 182 / 1993 Coll. for inadmissibility (an obstacle to litispendence). However, the Unit of Eagle Zlín-Malenovice has, in the relevant part of the proceedings on the proposal of a group of Members, the status of intervener under Sections 28 (2) and 35 (2) of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll.
The appellant objected to the contested provisions of the law
(a) Articles 1 and 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) and, where appropriate, similar provisions on human rights agreed in the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
(b) Articles 1, 3, 4 and 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Charter") and similar provisions on human rights agreed in those international instruments
and the proposal to repeal those legal provisions justified in particular the following arguments:
The laws of the former Federal Assembly and of the former Czech National Council were intended to create a legal basis for the recovery of the property rights of voluntary body-building organisations, which were taken away from them by the laws adopted by the legislative body of a totalitarian state at the time of Act No. 198 / 1993 Coll., on the illegality of the Communist regime and on its resistance, calls the time of destruction of the traditional values of European civilization, the conscious destruction and violation of human rights and freedoms, the moral and economic decline, accompanied by judicial crimes and terror against holders of different beliefs and the destruction of traditional property principles. In fact, these laws were mainly legalized by the situation created by the totalitarian regime, because the range of bodies liable for the recovery of property rights to the associations (social organisations) was defined in such a way that most new owners (holders) do not have this obligation. This legislation enacted principles unacceptable to civilised legal society, namely:
1. that the holder of the unlawfully removed property may not return it;
2. that the risk arising from the purchase of an unlawfully removed item does not have to be borne by the purchaser of the item but by its original (genuine) owner,
3. that the legal continuity established by law between the original association (social organisation) and the association (organisation) which resumed its activities after November 1989 is not effective in respect of property rights.
In the vast majority of cases of withdrawal of the assets of the associations carried out by the authorities of the totalitarian regime during the period of infreedom, i.e. from February 1948 to November 1989, as well as the winding-up of the associations, the appellant considered that it was illegal because it was implemented in violation of the laws in force at the time. The adjustment of the terms and conditions for the recovery of property rights, as brought about by the contested legislation, is, in fact, from 1 January 1993 at the very beginning, unconstitutional, since those laws, adopted by the Politopad Councils, did not impose an obligation to restore property rights to the associations who hold it, not even in the Czech Republic, and thus infringed human rights guaranteed by international treaties. Article 11 of the Charter guarantees everyone the right to own the property and expropriation or the compulsory restriction of the right of ownership only in the public interest, by law and for compensation. That provision also implies the right to the protection of property to be provided by the State. If the State fails to fulfil that obligation and the legislature adopts laws which, contrary to the principle of equality, favour the State or, where appropriate, one entity against other entities (associations), it is a typical breach of constitutional rules, namely Articles 1 and 11 of the Charter and Article 96 of the Constitution. Incriminated legal provisions have grossly infringed the natural right of social organisations and associations to recover property by establishing a range of entities liable to return property so closely that most of the assets withdrawn could not be recovered and infringement of Article 11 of the Charter on the Protection of Property Law and similar provisions of international treaties.
It follows from the proposal that it is a requirement to extend the scope of compulsory bodies in the context of the recovery of the property rights of voluntary organisations.
The point is that, according to the appellant, those laws should have imposed an obligation to return the property rights of voluntary organisations to anyone holding such property.
In addition to the applicant, the Parliament of the Czech Republic (§ 28 paragraph 1, § 69 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll.) is a party to the proceedings. Although the Federal Assembly of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and the Czech National Council issued laws whose partial annulment is proposed, the succession of the Parliament of the Czech Republic results, on the one hand, from Article 3 (1) of the Constitutional Act of the Czech National Council No. 4 / 1993 Coll., on measures related to the disappearance of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, on the other hand, from the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court first examined how Paragraph 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., provided that the contested laws were adopted and issued within the limits of the constitutional competence and the constitutionally prescribed manner. At the time of the issue of the laws and their amendments, the powers of the legislature were given by the provisions of Articles 29 et seq., 102 et seq. of Constitutional Law No. 143 / 1968 Coll., on the Czechoslovak Federation, as amended. It was found from the submitted archive of the House of Commons of the Federal Assembly and the Czech National Council, which the Constitutional Court requested from the Office of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, that the meetings at which the laws were voted on and later on their amendments were attended by a sufficient number of Members, the laws were adopted by the necessary number of votes, were signed by the relevant constitutional officials and were duly announced in the Collection of Laws. The laws, the individual provisions of which a group of Members proposes to abolish, have become a valid part of our rule of law and are, as is clear from Article 1 (1) of the Constitutional Law of ČNR No. 4 / 1993 Coll.
Pursuant to Articles 42 (3) and 69 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll. the proposal was sent to the Parliament of the Czech Republic with a call for comments. The then President of the Chamber of Deputies, Dr Milan Uhde, took the following position on the proposal:
Act 173 / 1990 Coll. adopted the former Federal Assembly of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic on 9 May 1990 and became effective on 1 June 1990. The aim of the Act was the necessity of the immediate repeal of Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll., and thus the removal of the legislative pretext that could be used by the successor organizations for the abolished Czechoslovak Union of Physical Education to prevent the natural democratic development of the organisation and management of physical culture in our country. At the time of the adoption of the Act, its individual provisions were not contrary to the Constitution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, nor to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, as Constitutional Act No. 23 / 1991 Coll., establishing the Charter, was adopted by the Federal Assembly of the CSFR on 9 January 1991 and became effective on 8 February 1991. Law 247 / 1991 Coll. adopted by the former Federal Assembly of CSFR on 31 May 1991, with effect from 14 June 1991, followed, on the one hand, the extension of the period of entitlement to the legal successor of the organisation referred to in § 2 of Law 68 / 1956 Coll. by one year (in fact it was six months), on the other hand, the moratorium on possible transfers of property rights of those legal successors. Act of the Czech National Council No. 232 / 1991 Coll. adopted on 22 May 1991 with effect from 1 June 1991 was issued for the implementation of Act No. 173 / 1990 Coll. The Act of the Czech National Council No. 312 / 1991 Coll. adopted on 8 July 1991 with effect from 9 August 1991 responded to the legislative technical adaptations resulting from the adoption of Act No. 247 / 1991 Coll. All three of these laws were not in conflict with the Constitution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republics in force at the time of their adoption; However, there is a doubt as to whether they were fully in accordance with the already effective Constitutional Act No. 23 / 1991 Coll. In this situation, it must be stated that the legislature acted in the belief that the laws adopted were in line with the Constitution of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic in force at that time. It is up to the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of the contested laws in the light of the proposal submitted by the Group of Members in terms of their compliance with the Constitution and the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and to give the relevant decision.
Other documents requested from the Office The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic found that on 18 May 1993 Members Jiří Karas and Jiří Stadler submitted the principles of the Act on the Recovery of Assets to Associations, Social Organisations and Other Civil Associations (House Press 363). The principle 4 reads as follows: "The obligation to issue it on the effective date of the Law shall be laid down, on the basis of a written invitation from a creditor, but not later than 6 months." The principles of the Act were ordered by the Organising Committee to discuss the Committee on Budgets, Science, Education, Culture, Youth and Sports and the Committee on Public Administration, Regional Development and the Environment.
In its Resolution of 23 June 1993 No 96, the Committee on Budgets merely stated that it had discussed the draft principles of the Law, the Committee on Science, Education, Culture, Youth and Sports on 27 January 1994, decided by Resolution No 132 that it would not discuss the principles of the Law, and the Committee on Public Administration, Regional Development and the Environment did not adopt any resolution for the press. 363 On 3 March 1994, the Organising Committee adopted Resolution No 297, by which it took note of the opinion of the Committees, and ordered the President of the Chamber of Deputies to send it to the petitioners of the principles of the Law on the Recovery of Assets to the Associations, Social Organisations and other civil associations. Nothing else has happened on this matter in the legislature.
Furthermore, it was requested pursuant to § 48 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll. of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic as a central body of state administration. In its observations, the Ministry points out in particular the complexity of dealing with potential new restitution cases under the laws on the return of assets to voluntary organisations.
The Constitutional Court examined the proposal of a group of Members to repeal the cited provisions of those laws in view of their compliance with the constitutional laws and international treaties on human rights and fundamental freedoms by which the Czech Republic is bound, pursuant to § 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll.
As regards restitution legislation, the legislature based on the fundamental concept that monitoring public values is guided by the idea that the aim of restitution is to mitigate the consequences of certain property injustices caused between 1948 and 1989. This concept is explicitly expressed in the preamble to Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., on extrajudicial rehabilitation, and No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the modification of property relations with land and other agricultural property. In the case at hand, they are legal persons, unlike other restitution laws. The legislature has defined the area of mandatory persons in a way that expresses its legitimate political will on the basis of the principle set out above that the aim of the law is to mitigate the consequences of certain injustices.
In its decision-making activities (e.g. the finding of 2 April 1996 in the Pl ÚS 47 / 95 case) The Constitutional Court takes the view that the legislator cannot be restricted in defining the bodies covered by the law. In case Pl. ÚS 47 / 95 The Constitutional Court took the view that it was not the differentiation nature of the rule of law, but that it was part of its own definition of beneficiaries, which can be extended by analogy to the present case, where the law defines the category of persons required. The fact that the legislator was able to act differently in establishing the law cannot in itself be regarded as an advantage or disadvantage for a group of entities.
The Constitutional Court also addressed the decision-making practice of the General Courts in this field and found that, under No 9 / 1996, the Reports of Judgments and Opinions issued by the Supreme Court in order to harmonise the case-law of the General Courts were published in the judgment of the Regional Court in Hradec Králové of 5 May 1994, sp. zn. 13 Co. 88 / 94, which contains the following legal opinion:
"According to the provisions of § 2 of Act No. 247 / 1991 Coll. the property rights of the Czech municipality of Sokol and others re-established by voluntary organisations, which were withdrawn from them by Act No. 187 / 1949 Coll., No. 71 / 1952 Coll. and No. 68 / 1956 Coll., according to the condition of 31 March 1948.
The claims for repayment of those property rights had to be applied to the legal successor of the organisations referred to in § 2 of Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll. until 31 December 1991.
The legal successor is any entity which held such property withdrawn on the date of application of Law 173 / 1990 Coll.. '
It can be concluded from this that, if the right to return the property was properly and in a timely manner exercised by an authorised organisation with a legally defined body, it is irrelevant which types of legal succession (universal or singular) of restitution claims follow (e.g. the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prague of 15 May 1996 sp. zn. 7 Cmo 131 / 94).
As regards the interpretation of the law, the Constitutional Court points out its finding of 26 March 1996 of the ÚS 48 / 95, according to which, in a situation where a provision of legislation allows two interpretations, one of which is in accordance with the constitutional laws and international treaties referred to in Article 10 of the Constitution and the other is in conflict with them, there is no reason to repeal that provision. It is for the courts to interpret the provision in a constitutional manner when applying it.
In the view of the Constitutional Court, the range of bodies liable for recovery of the assets of newly created voluntary organisations is not defined as closely as the appellant contends, and the compulsory body may also be a State if, by taking over the assets withdrawn under those laws, it became the legal successor of the organisation referred to in § 2 of Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll. and held the assets on the effective date of Act No. 173 / 1990 Coll., i.e. 1 June 1990.
For the reasons set out above, the Constitutional Court has concluded that the heading of the mandatory persons in those laws has been established on the basis of the legitimate political will of the legislator and that the contested provisions of the laws cited do not conflict with constitutional laws and international treaties under Article 10 of the Constitution and do not undermine the constitutional order of the Czech Republic.
Therefore, the proposal of a group of Members under Paragraph 70 (2) of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll. was rejected.
The decision of the Constitutional Court cannot be appealed against.
President of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The finding of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic No. 24 / 1997 Coll., on the application for annulment of the part of the provision of the Act No. 173 / 1990 Coll., repealing Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll., on the organisation of physical education, and governing certain other relations concerning voluntary body organisations, as amended by Act No. 247 / 1991 Coll., and the part of the provision of the Act No. 232 / 1991 Coll., on the conditions and arrangements for the recovery of property rights arising from the Act No. 173 / 1990 Coll., which repeals Act No. 68 / 1956 Coll., on the organisation of physical education, and which regulates certain other relationships concerning voluntary physical organisations, as amended by the Act No. 312 / 1991 Coll. |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 27.02.1997 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0