Found at the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic No. 29 / 1996 Coll.
The finding of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic of 13 December 1995 on the application for annulment of certain provisions of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the modification of property relations with land and other agricultural property, as amended, Act No. 183 / 1993 Coll., amending and supplementing Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the modification of property relations with land and other agricultural property, as amended by Act No. 42 / 1992 Coll., Act No. 93 / 1992 Coll., and Act No. 39 / 1993 Coll., and Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll.
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
09.02.1996
29
FIND
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic
On behalf of the Czech Republic
The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic decided on 13 December 1995 in plenary on the proposal of Ing. W. M., a group of Members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic and A. J. to repeal certain provisions of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the modification of property relations with land and other agricultural property, as amended, Act No. 183 / 1993 Coll., amending and supplementing Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., and Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll.
as follows:
The date of the declaration of the finding in the Collection of Laws shall be deleted:
(a) Paragraph 4 (1) of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the treatment of property relations with land and other agricultural property, as amended, part of the first sentence after the comma in the words "residing on its territory, and ';
(b) Paragraph 4 (2) of the same law in the words "and are permanent in its territory,"
(c) Paragraph 6 (2) of the same Act in the words "who are resident in the territory of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic,"
(d) Paragraph 7 (2) of the same Act in the words "resident in the Czech Republic,"
(e) the sentence of the second Paragraph 8 (1) of the same law, which reads "The proposal must be applied by 31 December 1992 or within six months of the legal authority of the Land Office's decision not to issue the property, otherwise the law shall cease."
(f) Paragraph 13 (1) of the same Law,
(g) Paragraph 13 (2) of the same Law in the words "applied within the time limit referred to in paragraph 1" and in the words "from the date of expiry of the time limit referred to in paragraph 1,"
(h) Paragraph 22 (6) of the same Law in the words "since the effectiveness of that Act,"
(i) Paragraph 22 (8) of the same law in the words "before the end of 1993,"
(j) Paragraph 26 (2) of the same Law in the words "from the effectiveness of that Act,"
(k) Article II of Act No. 183 / 1993 Coll., amending and supplementing Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the Treatment of Property Relations with Land and Other Agricultural Property, as amended by Act No. 42 / 1992 Coll., Act No. 93 / 1992 Coll. and Act No. 39 / 1993 Coll.
(l) Paragraph 2 (1) of the Act of the Czech National Council No. 243 / 1992 Coll., which regulates certain issues relating to Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the treatment of property relations with land and other agricultural property, as amended by Act No. 93 / 1992 Coll., in the words "resident in the Czech Republic,"
m) in the provision of § 2 (2) of the same Act in the words "and live permanently in the Czech Republic,"
(n) Paragraph 11 of the same Law.
Reasons
On 19 December 1994, the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic received a constitutional complaint from the complainant Ing. W. M. against the decision of the Land Office of the District Office of Plzeň-North of 28 April 1994 No. PÚ-3457 / 92. The constitutional complaint was accompanied by a motion for annulment:
(a) the provisions of Sections 4 (1) and (2) and 13 (1) of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the treatment of property relations with land and other agricultural property, as amended, part of the first sentence after the comma in the words "having a permanent residence in its territory" and the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the same Act in the words "having a permanent residence in its territory"; and
(b) Paragraph 13 (1) of the same Act, provided that it sets precise deadlines for the application of claims.
The complainant requests the annulment of the provisions of Sections 4 (1) and 4 (2) of the Act on 1 February 1995, since, in its view, they infringe the provisions of Articles 1 and 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution), Articles 1, 3 (1), 4 (2) and (3), 11 (2) and 14 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (hereinafter referred to as the Charter) and finally Article 1 (1) of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It does not further justify its proposal, but points to the finding of the Constitutional Court of 12 July 1994, which was published under No 164 / 1994 Coll., and its justification.
Since the deadline for the application of these claims has already expired under § 13 (1) and (2) of the Act, the complainant considers that the removal of the barrier of the abolition of the permanent residence conditions in the Czech Republic would be unnecessary if "at the same time the precise deadlines for the application of the claims resulting from this Act and the establishment of a new effective date from which those claims can be claimed would not be abolished."
The facts of the case are as follows. On 28 December 1992, i.e. within the statutory deadline, the complainant Ing. W. M. and J.M., personal data not detected, Sydney, Australia and G. L., Roz. M., personal data not detected, US byte, pursuant to § 9 (1) of the Act claim to specified properties.
The Land Office of the District Office of Plzeň-North concluded that neither of the applicants fulfilled the conditions of Section 4 of the Act, i.e. that they are not citizens of the Czech Republic and do not have permanent residence in its territory. He therefore no longer carried out further evidence. In view of the failure to comply with those conditions under Article 4 of the Act, by Decision No PÚ- 3457 / 92 of 28 April 1994, he determined that those persons, including the complainant, are not owners of the properties in question and are not entitled to compensation. The complainant was also informed of the possibility of reviewing the decision by the Regional Court. However, he did not make use of this possibility. The decision in question therefore became legal. On 19 December 1994, the Constitutional Court received a complaint relating to the application for annulment of those provisions of the Act.
The complaint was lodged for postal services on 15 December 1994. It also includes the presentation of a document showing that, at the time of the claim, the complainant was a citizen of the Czech Republic on the basis of the decision of the Ministry of Interior No. VSP / 3-53 / 1239 / 90- 786 of 26.7.1990. The Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court, having regard to the provisions of § 75 (1) (a) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, concluded that the appellant fulfilled the conditions of § 74 of Law No. 182 / 1993 Coll., suspended the procedure and the application for annulment of the provisions in question was forwarded to the plenary of the Constitutional Court for a decision pursuant to Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution in the part concerning the application for revocation of the term of residence in the provisions of § 4 (1) and (2) of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., as amended. By its additional resolution of 15 June 1995, he referred to the decision of the plenary of the Constitutional Court as well as the remainder of the proposal requesting the annulment of the provisions of Paragraph 13 (1) of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., as amended by Act No. 39 / 1993 Coll. On 15 June 1995, the Judge-Rapporteur rejected part of the proposal requesting the annulment of the provisions of Paragraph 13 (1) of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., as amended.
At the time of the preparation of the proceedings in Pl. ÚS 8 / 95, the Constitutional Court received on 2 June 1995 a proposal from a group of 69 Members to repeal the above provisions of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., as amended, Act No. 93 / 1992 Coll., and Act No. 183 / 1993 Coll., amending and supplementing Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the modification of property relations to land and other agricultural property, as amended by Act No. 42 / 1992 Coll., Act No. 93 / 1992 Coll.
A group of Members justifies its proposal by the fact that the nature, nature and legal consequences of the contested parts of the provisions of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., as amended, are identical to the repealed provisions of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., on extrajudicial rehabilitation, as amended. According to their belief, it would not only be illogical, but also contrary to the Constitution and the Charter, if two laws dealing with the same issue governed entirely differently the legal requirements of natural persons, depending only on whether they are resident or not in the Czech Republic. For the same reason a group of Members proposes to repeal the above-mentioned provisions of the Czech National Council Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll. limiting the possibility of correcting injustices to those who live permanently in the Czech Republic.
According to the group of Members it is also necessary to repeal the provisions of § 13 (1), the last sentence of § 8 (1) and the relevant parts of the provisions of § 13 (2), § 22 (6) and (8) and § 26 (2) and Article II of Act No. 183 / 1993 Coll. and § 11 of the Czech National Council Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll. These provisions lay down the deadlines already expired for the application of claims under Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll. and Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll. This proposal does not give any further justification to a group of Members. It merely points out that this will allow the beneficiaries to exercise their right in the legal way and that these provisions are contrary to the same provisions of the Constitution, the Charter and the Additional Protocol to the European Convention, as stated in the reasons for the Constitutional Court's finding No 164 / 1994 Coll.
Since the Pl ÚS 16 / 95 proposal complied with the conditions laid down in § 64 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll. and was admissible under § 66 of the same Act, the Constitutional Court initiated proceedings and requested, pursuant to § 69 of the same law, the Parliament of the Czech Republic to comment in writing on the proposal within the legal period.
On 20 June 1995, the appellant referred to the Constitutional Court in the Pl. ÚS 8 / 95 Ing. W. M. case, in which he removes his proposal to examine the constitutionality of the above provisions of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., as amended. However, this withdrawal was not permitted by the Constitutional Court by its order of 12 July 1995.
Following this, the Judge-Rapporteur in Case Pl. ÚS 16 / 95, by his order No. Pl. ÚS 16 / 95-27 of 26 July 1995, rejected the proposal of a group of Members in the section requesting the annulment of § 4 (1) of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., as amended, part of the first sentence after comma in the words "which has a permanent residence in its territory and" and the provisions of § 4 (2) of the same law in the words "and have permanent residence in its territory." In this part of the proposal, the group of Members has retained the right to participate as an intervener within the meaning of Article 35 (2) of Law No 182 / 1993 Coll..
At the time of the proceedings already initiated in Pl. ÚS 16 / 95, the Constitutional Court challenged the complainant's constitutional complaint, A. J., which was linked to the proposal to examine the constitutionality of the provisions of § 7 (2) of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., as amended, and § 2 (1) and (2) of the Czech National Council Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll. In this case, too, the Judge-Rapporteur rejected the application in this section, maintaining the complainant's right to take part in the joined proceedings in Pl. ÚS 8 / 95 as an intervener.
In view of the fact that the complainant's proposal, Ing. W. M., to abolish the provisions of Law No 229 / 1991 Coll. on permanent residence, aimed at resolving the same issue as that of a group of Members, although more closely formulated, the Constitutional Court decided on the merger of cases sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 8 / 95 and sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 16 / 95 to joint proceedings within the meaning of § 112 (1) (b) in conjunction with § 63 of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll.
With regard to the substance of the case, it was necessary to resolve the question whether the applications for annulment of the above provisions were substantive and whether the Constitutional Court's legal opinion on the annulment of similar provisions of Act No 87 / 1991 Coll. (Pl. ÚS 3 / 94) or whether this view needs to be amended in accordance with the procedure laid down in § 13 of Law No 182 / 1993 Coll. or whether it is a different problem.
According to Article 69 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll. the President of the Chamber of Deputies sent its opinion on the proposal of Ing. W. M. It states that Law No. 229 / 1991 Coll. was approved in a constitutional manner. In the Chamber of Deputies' view, the law then respects the fact that it is not possible to correct all the injustices that occurred during the relevant period. The establishment of permanent residence and citizenship conditions under the legislature is fully in line with international practice. In the opinion, any reference to the acceptance of the finding of Pl. ÚS 3 / 94 to Act No 87 / 1991 Coll. and its consequences is completely omitted.
Also, the President of the Chamber of Deputies PhDr. Milan Uhde sent an opinion on the proposal of a group of 69 Members on 13 July 1995, which also relates to the provisions of § 4 paragraphs 1 and 2 of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., as amended, but also calls for the repeal of a number of other provisions of the same Act, Article II of Act No. 183 / 1993 Coll. and the above provisions of the Czech National Council Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll. In its opinion, it states that the laws, the constitutionality of which the provisions are the subject of proceedings, have been approved by the necessary majority of legislators, have been signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and have been duly declared.
From the point of view of content, it states that Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll. is the basic law governing the restitution of agricultural assets adopted by the Federal Assembly. The purpose of its adjustment was, in the context of the economic reform launched, to urgently adjust ownership relations to land so that owners could fully implement their ownership rights and, at the same time, to allow the privatisation of state land. As regards the conditions of citizenship and permanent residence, they were based on the same principle as in Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll. The laws amending and supplementing Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll. respond to the situation that arose after the law began to be implemented in practice and other related laws were adopted. The content of the Act of the Czech National Council No. 243 / 1992 Coll. is the elimination of certain other property injustices that occurred in the Czech Republic by the application of certain laws, which is entirely in line with the authorisation contained in § 7 (2) of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., as amended by Act No. 93 / 1992 Coll.
In its opinion, the President of the Chamber of Deputies considers it unnecessary to repeat the argument contained in the observations made by the Chamber of Deputies on other proposals (for the last time on the proposal by Ing. W. M. in Pl. ÚS 8 / 95), and in particular in view of the finding of the Constitutional Court of Pl. ÚS 3 / 94 published under No 164 / 1994 Coll. "However, we believe that the compliance of this legal solution with the constitutional guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms must be assessed in particular with regard to the period in which those laws were adopted," says the President of the Chamber of Deputies. It also expressed its view that the legislature acted in the belief that the laws adopted were in line with the Constitution and our rule of law and it is up to the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of those laws and to give a decision.
(Constitution of residence conditions)
As regards the constitutionality of the conditions of residence or permanent residence in the Czech Republic, the following proposals were submitted.
Complainant Ing. W. M. proposes that the following provisions be deleted:
(a) Paragraph 4 (1) of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., as amended, part of the first sentence after the comma in the words "having permanent residence in its territory,"
(b) Paragraph 4 (2) of the same law in the words "and have permanent residence in its territory."
In this part of its proposal, a group of 69 Members proposes to repeal the following provisions:
(c) Paragraph 6 (2) of the same Act in the words "who are resident on the territory of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic,"
(d) Paragraph 7 (2) of the same Act in the words "resident in the Czech Republic,"
(e) Paragraph 2 (1) of the Act of the Czech National Council No. 243 / 1992 Coll. in the words "resident in the Czech Republic,"
(f) in the provision of § 2 (2) of the same Act in the words "and live permanently in the Czech Republic."
The subject of the ongoing procedure was therefore, in this part of the draft assessment:
- whether the constitutional narrowing of the circle of persons covered by the possibility of mitigating certain property injustices against owners of agricultural and forestry property within the scope of § 1 (1) of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll.,
- whether there is no difference between the agricultural and forestry assets replanted under Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll. and any other property replanted under Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll. which would justify the maintenance of the term of permanent residence or permanent residence in the Czech Republic,
- whether it is therefore possible to stick to the legal opinion, which was detailed in the statement of reasons for the finding of Pl. ÚS 3 / 94 (No 164 / 1994 Coll.).
On the question of whether the constitutional narrowing of the circle of persons covered by the possibility of mitigating the consequences of certain property injustices against owners of agricultural and forestry property within the scope of Section 1 (1) of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., the Constitutional Court adopted an opinion based on its legal opinion, which was set out in detail in the preamble to the finding of Pl. ÚS 3 / 94 (No 164 / 1994 Coll.). In the present case, it was therefore only a matter of assessing whether there was no difference between the agricultural and forestry assets replanted under Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll. and other assets replanted under Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll. which would justify the maintenance of the permanent residence or permanent residence in the Czech Republic. However, the Constitutional Court did not find such a difference and maintained its initial position for the following reasons:
1. A different regime for the restitution of agricultural and forestry assets, on the one hand, and other assets, on the other, was established only as a result of the gradual adoption of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll. and No. 229 / 1991 Coll. Similarly, the finding of the Constitutional Court of Pl. ÚS 3 / 94 (No 164 / 1994 Coll.) concerned only other assets because the abolition of similar provisions on agricultural and forestry assets was not proposed and the Constitutional Court could not exercise ultra petitum.
This decision is therefore essentially merely to unify the regulation of a particular institute throughout the legal system in order to comply with the standards of higher legal force. An unjustified fragmentation of the established concept of "property ', which would be one of the consequences of maintaining the existing distinction between agricultural and forestry and other real estate, would be contrary to the requirement to remove the case-law. Maintaining good abstract concepts forms the basis of the rule of law and is one of the foundations of the rule of law of any free society.
2. The Constitutional Court therefore notes that the content of the concept of "certain property injustices' used in the preamble to Law No 229 / 1991 Coll. is aimed at defining the content and extent of the corrected injustices, not directly at defining their bodies. This is because the preamble speaks of 'some wrongs', but not of 'some owners' of agricultural and forestry property.
3. Article 11 (2) The Charter does not allow a distinction between the citizens of the Czech Republic (until 31.12.1992 the citizens of the Czech Republic) with permanent residence in the Czech Republic (until 31.12.1992 in the territory of the Czech Republic) and outside this territory, as already stated by the Constitutional Court in the Found No. 164 / 1994 Coll. Article 4 (2) The Charter allows the fundamental right or freedom to be restricted only by law and under the conditions laid down in the Charter, provided that Article 4 (4) The instruments must be examined for their substance and meaning in such intervention. These requirements of the Charter have not been complied with when determining the condition of permanent residence or permanent residence on the territory of the Czech Republic (CSFR until 31.12.1992) and therefore the fundamental rights have been restricted in an unacceptable way. The legislature is bound by constitutional laws, by the Charter and by international treaties pursuant to Article 10 of the Constitution and may impose restrictions only where those provisions provide for greater legal force.
4. Similarly, the Constitutional Court confirms its position on the link of Article 11 (2) to Article 14 of the Charter, which guarantees freedom of residence and movement as a fundamental human right. However, Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., as amended, links the contested provisions of the implementation of this right to the loss of the possibility of acquiring ownership of a particular case. However, Article 14 (3) of the Charter does not allow this. On the basis of this, a citizen of the Czech Republic cannot be forced to reside permanently in its territory and thus make the possibility of acquiring certain items under Article 11 (2) of the Charter into its possession. At the same time, the provisions of Article 3 (3) of the Charter have been infringed, according to which "no one 'may be harmed for the application of its fundamental rights and freedoms.
The Constitutional Court therefore confirmed its view expressed in the above mentioned finding and concluded that the proposal for the annulment of the above provisions of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., as amended, and of the Czech National Council Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll. concerning the condition of permanent residence or permanent residence in the territory of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic or the Czech Republic is justified, in particular if it points to a contradiction with Article 1 of the Constitution, Articles 1, 4 (2) and (3), Article 11 (2), Article 14 (2) of the Charter and Article 3 (3) of the Charter. In addition, reference is made to the reasoning for the finding of Pl ÚS 3 / 94 published under No 164 / 1994 Coll. For the reasons set out above, the Constitutional Court therefore considers the proposal of a group of Members to repeal the provisions of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., as amended, and the Act of the Czech National Council No. 243 / 1992 Coll. concerning the conditions of permanent residence or permanent residence in the territory of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic (since 1.1.1993 in the Czech Republic) to be justified.
Similarly, the Constitutional Court does not see "permanent residence 'and" permanent living' in terms of the purpose of the proposal for a difference in the terms of the term "permanent residence '. He points out here his opinion on this issue in Found No. 164 / 1994 Coll. (Collection of finds and resolutions, Sv. 1, Prague 1994, p. 283). These concepts, as well as the terms" residence, "" abstention, "etc., apply our legislation in different respects, depending on whether it is public or private law. The term" live permanently "used in § 7 (2) of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll. and § 2 (1) and (2) of the Czech National Council Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll. therefore only specifies the nature of such residence. Since the Constitutional Court considers, for the above reasons, the condition of permanent residence to be unconstitutional, for the same reasons, the condition of" permanent residence' in the Czech Republic (until the end of 1992 in the territory of CSFR) must be described as unconstitutional. It should be noted that explanatory note 1 in the Act of the Czech National Council No. 243 / 1992 Coll. lists Act No. 135 / 1982 Coll., on the registration of citizens' residence (correctly on the reporting and registration of citizens' residence) as the relevant law. However, the footnotes cannot be regarded as a binding part of the legislation (cf. sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 16 / 93, Collection of finds and resolutions, Sv. 1, p. 201) and can therefore not change the private legal concept of residence involving animus domicilandi as its public, political and registered form. However, this is not decisive in this case. This explanatory note merely points to the intention of the Czech legislature (contrary to the not clearly stated intention of the federal legislator) to regulate this issue in terms of the same terms as Law No. 229 / 1991 Coll. in Clause 4 (1) and (2).
(Constitution of periods of residence)
In the second part of its proposal, a group of Members The Chamber of Deputies has proposed the abolition of the following provisions setting the time limits for the exercise of rights under the legislation under review:
- Paragraph 8 (1), second sentence, of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., as amended, reads: "The proposal must be applied until 31 December 1992 or within six months of the legal authority of the Land Office's decision not to issue the property, otherwise the right shall cease ',
- Paragraph 13 (1) of the same Act,
- Paragraph 13 (2) of the same Law in the words "applied within the time limit referred to in paragraph 1" and in the words "from the date of expiry of the time limit referred to in paragraph 1,"
- Paragraph 22 (6) of the same Act, in the words "since the effectiveness of that Act,"
- Paragraph 22 (8) of the same law in the words "before the end of 1993,"
- Paragraph 26 (2) of the same Act, in the words "since the effectiveness of that Act,"
- Article II of Act No. 183 / 1993 Coll., which provides for a two-month pre-compulsory period for the application of the claims resulting from that Act,
- and finally the repeal of the provisions of § 11 of the Act of the Czech National Council No. 243 / 1992 Coll., which provides for a provisional deadline for the application of the claims resulting from this Act.
It should be noted that by the Act of the Czech National Council No. 39 / 1993 Coll. these deadlines have been postponed or redefined in Paragraph 13 (1). In particular, the deadline for the application of the real estate call under § 6 of the Act was postponed from 31.12.1992 to 31.1.1993 and a new deadline was set for the application of the compensation for dead and living inventory under § 20 to 31.3.1993. The Group of Members requests the annulment of these and other deadlines in a similar way as in the case of a finding of similar provisions of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll.
The Constitutional Court has examined these issues and, in relation to the application for annulment of the abovementioned time limits, it also confirms its legal opinion, which it expressed in the decision of Pl. ÚS 3 / 94 (No 164 / 1994 Coll.). Where the existence of a right is linked to a period of time, if it is established that the right has been restricted in an unconstitutional manner, it is necessary to remove the obstacle which would impede its constitutional application, be it the person entitled, who has been unconstitutionally reduced to his rights, or the owner, to whom he becomes subject to a successful right to issue the property. The Constitutional Court also maintained its initial position as regards the inadequate timeliness of deadlines in relation to citizens living abroad. Thus, they had a difficult opportunity to take measures to recover unfairly withdrawn agricultural property, whether by returning to their homeland or by attacking the unconstitutional provisions of the laws which made it impossible for them to resurgitate property. The Constitutional Court also reiterates its position on the need for sufficient respect for the equal rights of citizens in relation to the adjustment of deadlines and its position on the concept of retroactivity and legal certainty (Collection of finds and resolutions, Sv. 1, Prague 1994, p. 286 to 288).
As regards the difference between the time limits set by the time section (dies and quo) and the time limits set by the date (dies ad quem), the only difference must be seen in that the time limits set by the time section (dies and quo) are re-opened at the same length for persons who become executable of the finding by persons entitled, whereas in the case of the time limits set by the date (dies ad quem), the application of restitution entitlements will not be limited in time unless the general time is applied.
The Constitutional Court expects that the legislature itself will put the legislation into effect so that it is quite clear that only those persons who were not allowed to exercise the rights under the repealed provisions of the laws under review can exercise the rights, while at the same time setting new deadlines where they are completely deleted as a result of the finding of the Constitutional Court, setting them at such a length as to be proportionate to the annulment and the current situation of the newly authorised persons. The Constitutional Court does not have the means by which such time limits would itself be laid down and adjusted, under our constitutional regulations which bind it.
President of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.
The rights to give a different opinion on points (e) to (k) and (n) of the opinion of the Court of First Instance of the Czech Republic have been used by JUDr. Ivan Janů, JUDr. Vlastimil Ševčík and JUDr. Pavel Varvarovský.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The finding of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic No 29 / 1996 Coll., on the application for annulment of certain provisions of Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the modification of property relations to land and other agricultural property, as amended, Act No. 183 / 1993 Coll., amending and supplementing Act No. 229 / 1991 Coll., on the modification of property relations to land and other agricultural property, as amended by Act No. 42 / 1992 Coll., Act No. 93 / 1992 Coll., and Act No. 39 / 1993 Coll., and Act No. 243 / 1992 Coll. |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 09.02.1996 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
Legal Areas:
Customs law
Finance
Economic (State)
Wages, salaries, wages, compensation
Civil law
Civil law substantive
State Defence
Labour law
Judicial and Public Prosecutor's Office
Administration of state (national) property
Administrative authorities
Administrative law
Constitutional (state) law
Fundamental human rights
Agriculture
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0