The Constitutional Court found no 261 / 2000 Coll.
The Constitutional Court's finding of 4 July 2000 on the application for annulment of Section 10 of Part I of the Annex to Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll., on the Protection of the Sign and Name of the Red Cross and on the Czechoslovak Red Cross
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
15.08.2000
261
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Czech Republic
On 4 July 2000 the Constitutional Court decided in plenary on the application for annulment of point 10 of Part I of the Annex to Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll., on the protection of the sign and name of the Red Cross and on the Czechoslovak Red Cross,
as follows:
The date of publication of this finding in the Collection of Laws in Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll., on the protection of the sign and name of the Red Cross and on the Czechoslovak Red Cross, paragraph 10 of Part I of the Annex entitled Overview of immovable property, which is returned to the Czechoslovak Red Cross, is hereby deleted.
Reasons
By judgment of 28 March 1999 in Case 14 C 251 / 98, the District Court of Pilsen rejected the complainant's application against the opponent of the Czech Red Cross in order to determine that the owner of the house No. 100 in Pilsen, Coastal Street No. 15 and the parcel No 10248 in K. Ú. Pilsen-town (formerly No. 4971) is the complainant.
In the preamble to that judgment, the Court stated in particular that the application was in the nature of a determining action. The Court found an urgent legal interest in the determination of ownership, since the complainant had no other way of influencing the registration in the property register when the Czech Red Cross was registered as the owner of the property in question. According to Article 2 (1) (c) of Act No. 172 / 1991 Coll., on the transfer of certain items from the property of the Czech Republic to the ownership of the municipalities, as amended, the right to the property in question has been transferred to the complainant. Pursuant to Article 6 (1) and (2) of Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll. the State will return to the Czechoslovak Red Cross the property which was withdrawn from it between 25.2.1948 and 31.12.1989 to the extent set out in the Annex to that Act, the property being declared to be the property of the Czechoslovak Red Cross on the date of its effectiveness (i.e. 1 July 1992). According to the Annex to this Act under heading 10 as owner of the properties in question, the Czechoslovak Red Cross is mentioned.
Thus, it was alleged that Law 172 / 1991 Coll. declared the complainant as the owner of the house in question and Law 126 / 1992 Coll. declared the Czechoslovak Red Cross as the complainant. That is why the Pilsen County Court was based on the registration in the real estate register, according to which the Czech Red Cross is the owner of the above properties, and since the complainant failed to prove otherwise, the cadastral registration corresponds to the actual situation of the case. From the point of view of the relationship between the two laws, the court considered the special law No. 126 / 1992 Coll., which specifically specifies the property in question (and which therefore takes precedence) and the general law No. 172 / 1991 Coll. On one point, the Court concluded that the owner of the property in question was an opponent (Czech Red Cross) and rejected the complaint.
The Regional Court in Pilsen, in judgment of 13.9.1999, sp. zn. 15 Co. 426 / 99, confirmed the judgment of the Regional Court of Pilsen (I.) in the operative part of the judgment rejecting the action to determine that the complainant was the owner of the house no. 100 in Pilsen, Coastal ul. no. 15 ("the House concerned '), and (II.) in the operative part concerning plot No 10248 in K. Pilsen (" the plot in question') in such a way that the complainant was the owner of that land.
In the preamble to this judgment, the Regional Court in Pilsen stated that the construction of the house in question had been completed in 1933, which implies that this house could not have been the subject of a purchase contract concluded in Vienna in 1906, so that the purchase contract could have only been related to the land in question. Moreover, the fact that the complainant owned the land in question is also evidenced by the 1932 Land Book extract. By order of the City Council in Pilsen of 27 October 1933, the city devoted the house to permanent and free use of the Czechoslovak Red Cross.
The building was allegedly built out of its own resources by the Czechoslovak Red Cross Association, but it did not become its owner, because according to the "superstructures solo cedit" principle, the construction followed the legal fate of the land and "the possible incorporation of the construction in the relevant plot of the land book was rather informative and had no greater meaning." The owner of this building was therefore - as owner of the property - the city of Pilsen, which also paid the Czechoslovak Red Cross Association the cost of the construction. The nationalization of the two properties was likely in 1950. It is therefore also correct for the complainant to claim that both properties became effective on the date of Act No. 172 / 1991 Coll. (i.e. 24 April 1991) by the complainant's property, which was later mentioned in the property register.
The Regional Court in Pilsen further concluded that, after Law No. 126 / 1992 Coll. has become effective (1.7.1992), the legal fate of the house in question and the land in question must be distinguished, since according to that law, the State will return to the Czechoslovak Red Cross the property which was withdrawn from it between 25.2.1948 and 31.12.1989 to the extent set out in the Annex to the Act. The real estate listed in the Annex is declared to be the property of the Czechoslovak Red Cross on the effective date of the Act. Since this Annex (note: under point 10) also contains the house and the building plot No 89, the appellate court considers that the ownership of the Czechoslovak Red Cross has been acquired in effect and the complainant has been obliged to respect that ownership. While the State was not the owner of a building that had become the property of the city at the time of the Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll. the State was not the owner of the building that had become the owner of the city, "but the case was thus passed on with all the rights and obligations relating to the property, including the obligation to issue the case to a legitimate restituent, or, as in the case at hand, to the person to whom the law designates the law." In addition, Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll. is special in relation to Act No. 172 / 1991 Coll. as the court has already stated by finding. In this part of the proposal, the Regional Court in Pilsen confirmed the judgment of the District Court.
As regards the land in question, the Regional Court in Pilsen concluded that it was not owned by the Czechoslovak Red Cross and that the property right was not established by law, since Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll., "whatever the reasons," does not mention the land and therefore the creation of the ownership right of the Czechoslovak Red Cross cannot be inferred to it. The registration in the real estate register was therefore incorrect in this respect. To this extent, the Regional Court in Pilsen granted the complainant's application.
In a constitutional complaint against the judgment of the Regional Court in Pilsen of 13 September 1999, sp. zn. 15 Co. 426 / 99, the complainant stated in particular that it infringed its constitutional rights under Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter ') and Article 101 (3) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic No 1 / 1993 Coll. (" the Constitution'). In addition, he also objected to the infringement of Articles 7 and 86 (2) of the Constitution of the CSSR No. 100 / 1960 Coll. and Article 4 (7) of Constitutional Law No. 143 / 1968 Coll., on the Czechoslovak Federation.
According to Article 6 (1) of Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll., the defendant sees the unconstitutional objection that the property of the Czechoslovak Red Cross will be issued by the State, namely the property which was withdrawn from it between 25.2.1948 and 31.12.1989, to the extent specified in the Annex to this Act. The complainant considers that the transfer of ownership to the Czechoslovak Red Cross can only take place in this case, provided that all the legal conditions are fulfilled cumulatively, i.e. that the assets of the State which was withdrawn from the Czechoslovak Red Cross during the relevant period, and that the property falls within the scope of the cases mentioned in the Annex to Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll. The real estate in the annex to the Act is therefore not supposed to result in the transfer of ownership to the house in question to the Czechoslovak Red Cross.
The purpose of Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll. was to remedy certain injustices caused by the Czechoslovak Red Cross and therefore cannot apply to other cases which do not fall within the category of property injustices caused by the Czechoslovak Red Cross. In the preparation of this Act it was allegedly based on erroneous information, since, for example, as the owner of the house in question, the Czech State - the housing company of the city of Pilsen is mentioned, although the complainant was already the owner of this property at the date of the effective date of the Act. In addition, the building plot is erroneously attached to this construction, which is not identical to the land on which the house is situated and is not related to the building. "The apparent inaccuracy of these data causes legitimate doubts about the overall correctness of the annex to Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll., and for this reason, in order to fulfil the purpose of Paragraph 6 (1) of the Act, it is necessary to examine in each individual case the fulfilment of the other conditions prescribed by the provision cited above."
In the complainant's view, it is first of all necessary that the properties in question should be owned by the State at the date of application of Law No 126 / 1992 Coll. as evidenced by the fact that all properties listed in the annex to the Act are listed as their owner. In the present case, however, the house in question was not owned by the State, but by the municipality (complainant), as confirmed in the judgment under appeal by the Regional Court in Pilsen.
At the same time, the Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll. applies only to property which was removed from the Czechoslovak Red Cross between 25.2.1948 and 31.12.1989. However, it is not possible to consider the withdrawal of any right of use but only the withdrawal of ownership or right of management. However, the legal predecessor of the opponent (Czechoslovak Red Cross) had only the right to use the object in question permanently and free of charge and did not bear witness to the right of ownership or right of management. If the house in question had been removed during the relevant period, it was removed from the complainant and not from the Czechoslovak Red Cross, and if the property rights had been transferred to it under Law No. 126 / 1992 Coll. to the Czechoslovak Red Cross, the general rule of law would have been infringed that "no one may enjoy more rights than he deserves." In order to correct the injustices of the Czechoslovak Red Cross, the right of permanent and free use of the house in question could be restored, but not the right of ownership.
For all these reasons, the complainant proposed that the judgment of the Regional Court in Pilsen of 13.9.1999 sp. zn. 15 Co. 426 / 99 be annulled in a statement confirming the judgment of the District Court of Pilsen of 28.3.1999 sp. zn. 14 C 251 / 98, while at the same time proposing the annulment of Part I. of the Annex to Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll. (designated as Overview of Real Estate, which is returning to the Czechoslovak Red Cross), since the complainant's right to property in question was denied in the contested judgment by reference to that law.
Pursuant to Article 74 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, a motion may be filed, together with a constitutional complaint, for the annulment of a law or any other law or provision thereof, the application of which resulted in a fact which is the subject of a constitutional complaint if, according to the complainant's claim, they are contrary to a constitutional law or an international treaty pursuant to Article 10 of the Constitution or, where applicable, to another law.
In view of the fact that the complainant, together with the constitutional complaint, submitted, pursuant to this legal provision, a proposal for the annulment of paragraph 10 of Part I of the Annex to Act No 126 / 1992 Coll. marked as Overview of the Real Estate, which returns to the Czechoslovak Red Cross, and since the Regional Court in Pilsen, in the judgment under appeal, relied on that point - as the Pilsen County Court - had done by applying that provision (paragraph 10 of Part I of the Annex to the Act), the fact which is the subject of a constitutional complaint.
Therefore, pursuant to § 78 (1) of Law No 182 / 1993 Coll. the Constitutional Court suspended proceedings on constitutional complaints. The application for annulment of this provision of the Law in question was referred to the full court of the Constitutional Court for a decision under Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic commented on the proposal for annulment of that provision pursuant to Article 69 (1) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., as amended.
It stated that Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll. was submitted in the Federal Assembly as print No. 954 VI of the term of office and, as owner and user of the immovable property in question, the Czech State - the housing company of the city of Pilsen was mentioned in the Act. In the explanatory memorandum to this proposal it was said that the house in question was built by the Czechoslovak Red Cross Plzeň in 1933 and that the ownership law was removed from the Czechoslovak Red Cross and transferred to the State under Act No. 185 / 1948 Coll., on the nationalisation of medical and nursing institutions and on the organisation of state constitutional medical care. Paragraph 6 of Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll. states that the body to which the right of ownership passes is the State, without any prejudice to who was actually the rightful owner at the time the law was passed and who is today. The party to the proceedings (Chamber of Deputies) agrees with the appellant that the transfer of ownership to real estate to the Czechoslovak Red Cross under Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll. it can only occur provided that all the legally prescribed conditions are fulfilled cumulatively, i.e. that the property must be owned by the State which has been withdrawn from the Czechoslovak Red Cross during the relevant period, which must fall within the real estate heading mentioned in the Annex to this Act. Therefore, the fact that the property is annexed to the Act is not sufficient to justify the transfer of ownership because "the law cannot objectively lead to the transfer of ownership from a person other than the State and therefore cannot constitute expropriation." Point 10 of Part I of the Annex to Law No 126 / 1992 Coll. cannot therefore be contrary to Article 11 of the Charter.
In contrast to Article 101 (3) of the Constitution, the Chamber of Deputies stated that the purpose of this provision was to grant legal personality to the local authorities. However, the contested paragraph 10 of Part I of the Annex to Act No 126 / 1992 Coll. does not remove this right from the city of Pilsen, as it applies only to the question of the transfer of ownership to a particular set of properties, not to the withdrawal of the right to own property in general.
According to the Chamber of Deputies, Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll. was adopted by the necessary majority of Members of the House of the People and of the House of Nations of the Federal Assembly, was signed by the President of the Republic, the Chairman of the FS and the Prime Minister of the Czech Government and was duly declared in the Collection of Laws.
For all the above reasons The Chamber of Deputies declared that the legislature acted in 1992 in the belief that paragraph 10 of Part I of the Annex to Law No 126 / 1992 Coll. was in line with the constitutional order in force at that time. It concluded its observations by saying, "However, it is up to the Constitutional Court, in connection with the application for annulment of the provision cited, to examine its constitutionality and to give a decision accordingly. '
Even before the Constitutional Court dealt with the proposal formically, it focused on whether the formal conditions for the adoption of the contested law (paragraph 10 of Part I of its Annex) were fulfilled.
As already stated, the Constitutional Court found that, in the present case, there was a reason to initiate the procedure for a specific control of standards under § 64 (1) (d) in conjunction with § 74 of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll., since the contested legal provision was actually applied by the general courts in the present case, that is to say, its application brought about by a fact which is the subject of a constitutional complaint. The Constitutional Court also found that in the present case the law was issued before the Constitution became effective and that it was therefore not for it to examine the constitutionality of the procedure of its formation and compliance with the legislative powers, but only its content compliance with the current constitutional order (cf. Resolution of 22 April 1999 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 5 / 98, Collection of finds and resolutions of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, p. 14, p. 309).
The Constitutional Court therefore finds that there is nothing preventing it from discussing and deciding the substance of the case.
The proposal is challenged by the provision of Section 10 of Part I of the Annex to Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll. marked as Overview of immovable property, which is returned to the Czechoslovak Red Cross, which reads: "House in Pilsen, Coastal ul. 15, No. 100 - House, building plot No. 89, registered at SG Plzeň-town, property sheet No. 10, ev. sheet 9909, kat. territory of Pilsen-town. Owner: Čs. state - apartment company of the city of Pilsen. User: Czech State - City of Pilsen Housing Company." It is clear that the listing of individual properties in the annex to the Act is only relevant in view of Article 6 of Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll. According to this provision, "The State shall restore to the Czechoslovak Red Cross the property which was withdrawn from it between 25.2.1948 and 31.12.1989 to the extent specified in the Annex to this Act" (paragraph 1). "Real estate listed in the Annex to this Act is declared to be the property of the Czechoslovak Red Cross as of the date of entry into force of this Act" (paragraph 2). It follows that the law (1 July 1992) has been legally transferred from the State to the Czechoslovak Red Cross. At the same time, it is clear that the law could only apply to those real estate owned by the State at the time of its effectiveness. This can be imported, on the one hand, from the heading "The State will return the assets to the Czechoslovak Red Cross..." in Paragraph 6 (1) of the Act, and, on the other hand, from the general legal principle that no one can transfer more rights than he has. While it is true that the State, under the conditions laid down in Article 11 (4) of the Charter (in the public interest, under the law and for compensation), is entitled to expropriate the property and to expropriate it, in the present case it is clear that the purpose of Law No 126 / 1992 Coll. was not to expropriate the property to other entities (and thus not to the complainant) in order to transfer it to the ownership of the Czechoslovak Red Cross, but only to recover the assets listed in the Annex to the Act, which was removed from the Czechoslovak Red Cross during the relevant period and which was the State's property at the time of effectiveness.
As the Constitutional Court found from the file of the District Court of Plzeň - City of 14 C 251 / 98 and, as the general courts also stated in the justifications of their judgments, the property in question was originally owned by the complainant, the City of Pilsen, and the same entity was its owner in accordance with Law No. 172 / 1991 Coll. on 28 May 1992. It follows from the extract from the property register of 18 October 1993 that the Czech Red Cross was registered as the owner of the property in question "pursuant to Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll." The Constitutional Court notes that the original owner of the property in question was the complainant, the city of Plzeň, who regained its ownership right to it by virtue of Act No. 172 / 1991 Coll. on 24 April 1991, but by virtue of Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll. on 1 July 1992, the property was transferred to the Czechoslovak Red Cross.
The purpose of Article 6 of Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll. was to recover the assets listed in the Annex to the Czechoslovak Red Cross. It follows from the definition of this provision that the transfer of ownership required the fulfilment of three legal conditions, cumulatively: the property of the State (1.) had to be (2.), which was withdrawn from the Czechoslovak Red Cross between 25.2.1948 and 31.12.1989 and (3.), as annexed to this Act. It is therefore clear that only those assets which met the above mentioned legal conditions should have been listed in the annex to this Act.
As is apparent from the court file, the property in question, which was the owner of which was not the State, but the City of Pilsen, was listed in Part I of the Annex to Act No 126 / 1992 Coll. in Part I of the Annex to Law No 126 / 1992. At the same time, it was not a real estate that was taken away from the Czechoslovak Red Cross during the decisive period, but from the city of Pilsen, which had owned the house since it was built in 1933, and the Czechoslovak Red Cross had only the right of permanent and free use. It can therefore be assumed that the inclusion of the property in question in the Annex to Act No 126 / 1992 Coll. was erroneously, since the contested part of the Annex to the Act is manifestly contrary to Paragraph 6 (1) of that Regulation.
Article 1 The Constitution is the Czech Republic's democratic legal state. The Constitutional Court has repeatedly ruled that the Czech Republic is committed to the principles not only of formal but above all of the material rule of law. The Constitution accepts and respects the principle of legality as part of the general concept of the rule of law, but does not only bind the positive right to formal legality, but the interpretation and application of the legal standards are subject to their inherent material meaning (cf. e.g. the finding of 21.12.1993 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 19 / 93, Collection of finds and resolutions of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, p. 1, p. 1). However, in the present case, the Constitutional Court found that the contested provision of paragraph 10 of Part I of the Annex to Law No 126 / 1992 Coll. is already contrary to the very principle of legality; One of the fundamental preconditions for the functioning of the rule of law is the existence of an internal consistency of its legal order. Therefore, it is also necessary for the individual legislation to be understandable and to result in foreseeable consequences. However, in the case of the contested provision, it is clear that the principles of the material and formal rule of law are not met. If, pursuant to Article 6 (1) of Act No 126 / 1992, the State returns to the Czechoslovak Red Cross the property which was withdrawn from it during the relevant period to the extent set out in the Annex to that Act, and at the same time the contested point 10 of Part I of that Annex mentions the property which, at the time when Law No. 126 / 1992 Coll. came into effect, was no longer in the possession of the State and was neither removed from the Czechoslovak Red Cross during the relevant period, it is an obvious contradiction which, in its consequences, leads (or may lead) to the incomprehensible nature of that part of the law and to the difficult predictability of its consequences. Therefore, the Constitutional Court considers that the unconstitutional nature of the contested provision, which is contrary to Article 1 of the Constitution, cannot be bridged by any constitutional interpretation which is not possible under the circumstances.
The Constitutional Court also concluded that the contested provision also contradicts Article 11 (1) and (4) of the Charter, which protects property law in its consequences; the expropriation or forced restriction of property rights allows only in the public interest, by law and for compensation. In the present case, the state authority infringed the complainant's right of ownership, by means of the law, since it had unconstitutional interference with his right of ownership without granting him compensation for this intervention. Thus, although the complainant did not expressly object, the legislature also committed infringement of Articles 8 and 101 (4) of the Constitution in its consequences, since it did not respect the principle of self-administration of a local authority, in particular the right of the complainant (among other things) to own the property and enjoy the protection of property rights.
For the sake of completeness, the Constitutional Court notes that it could not examine the complainant's objections if it saw the unconstitutionality of the contested provision of Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll. also in breach of Article 7 and Article 86 (2) of the Constitution of the CSSR No. 100 / 1960 Coll. and Article 4 (7) of Constitutional Act No. 143 / 1968 Coll., on the Czechoslovak Federation. This is because this legislation ceased to be part of the legal order of the Czech Republic pursuant to Article 112 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic no. 1 / 1993 Coll. by expressly cancelling it on 1 January 1993.
For all the above reasons The Constitutional Court ruled that the date of the publication of this finding in the Collection of Laws in Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll., on the protection of the character and name of the Red Cross and the Czechoslovak Red Cross, paragraph 10 of Part I of the Annex entitled Overview of immovable property, which is returned to the Czechoslovak Red Cross, is hereby repealed.
President of the Constitutional Court:
v. JUDr. Holecek v. r.
Vice-President
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | Found by the Constitutional Court No. 261 / 2000 Coll., on the application for annulment of Section 10 of Part I of the Annex to Act No. 126 / 1992 Coll., on the protection of the sign and name of the Red Cross and on the Czechoslovak Red Cross |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 15.08.2000 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0