The Constitutional Court found no 29 / 2021 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 8 December 2020 sp. zn.
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
01.02.2021
29
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
The Constitutional Court decided under sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 21 / 20 on 8 December 2020 in plenary composed of the President of the Court of Pavel Rychetský and the judges and judges of Jaroslav Fenyk, Josef Fiala, Jaromír Jirsa, Tomáš Lichovník, Vladimir Sládeček (Judge of the Rapporteur), Radovan Suchanek, Pavel Šámala, Kateřina Šimáková, Vojtěho Šimíček, Milady Tomková, David Uhíříř and Jiří Zemánek, on the proposal of the Senate of the SARS CoV2 Senate, represented on the lease of the area of the housing for the housing, on the recipient of the housing and in connection with the provision of the housing and non-population of the House with some of the influence of the House.
as follows:
Motion denied.
Reasons
Content of the proposal
1. By a proposal pursuant to Article 64 (1) (b) of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, reached by the Constitutional Court on 7 May 2020, the Group of 31 Senators of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the "Senators' Group or the" Propositor 'Group) requests that the Constitutional Court, in proceedings under Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution'), repeal Act 209 / 2020 Coll., on certain measures to mitigate the effects of the Coronavironavirno. SARS CoV-2 epidemic of housing needs, on the recipients of credit provided by the State Housing Development Fund and in connection with the provision of housing and non-byte premises, and Act No 210 / 2020 Coll. The proposal was accompanied by a request for priority consideration.
2. A group of Senators has justified the application for annulment of those laws by their alleged conflict with constitutional order, namely the provisions of Articles 3 (1) and 11 (4) and Article 26 (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Charter).
3. According to the appellant, the State authoritatively delegates its responsibility for the implementation of Article 26 (3) of the Charter to private entities and in breach of Article 11 (4), The Charter, without any compensation, obliges the lessor to bear all the economic burden of helping tenants affected by the effects of the Coronavirus SARS CoV-2 epidemic ("Coronavirus epidemic ') and instructs them, within a period of more than three quarters of a year, to effectively grant unpaid rent from their own resources.
4. The appellant notes that, in the context of the Coronavirus epidemic, the Government declared an emergency situation on 12 March 2020 and gradually adopted a series of crisis measures which have a major impact on the rights and economic conditions of the majority of the population. The result of the restrictions on freedom of movement and the closure of most establishments was to reduce the economic activity of a number of business entities. For a significant part of the citizens of the Czech Republic, these measures meant the total loss or limitation of their fundamental right to obtain the funds for their living needs by the work guaranteed in Article 26 (3) of the Charter. Thus, these people have found themselves blameless in a situation where they have lost a source of income to cover their life expenses. The contested laws have been adopted in order to mitigate these negative social and economic impacts and aim to assist tenants in meeting the housing needs and tenants in the business area to bridge this period of time when their income is affected and to avert the threat of termination of rents due to the proper non-payment of rent.
5. The appellant points out that it does not contest the intention pursued by the contested laws, but considers that they not only do not fulfil the need for effective aid to the affected population, but rather merely deepen the negative impact of the present situation and are unduly impacted on the fundamental rights of the landowners, to which the State is unilaterally and without any compensation the economic burden of the aid to the affected tenants is transferred.
6. Since the measures taken in the context of the Coronavirus epidemic have largely limited the right to obtain funds for their living needs by works, the appellant considers that, in such a situation, the constitutional order enshrined in the State's responsibility and responsibility in accordance with Article 26 (3) of the Charter is to ensure materially the citizens affected accordingly. The decline or loss of income due to measures taken in connection with the coronavirus epidemic does not only threaten the housing needs of the population, but also concerns entrepreneurs in relation to the rental of premises for business. An entrepreneur who cannot carry out his business as a result of crisis measures and therefore has no means of obtaining the funds to pay for his establishment, while remaining under the obligation to cover fixed costs, including the cost of renting an establishment, is effectively in the liquidation circle. Even after the restrictive measures have been released, it will no longer be able to carry on its activities, because it will not be able to pay the debt incurred and will be terminated after the end of the period of protection and will lose the premises to carry out its business.
7. On the other hand, the lessors of the contested laws are forced, without any compensation or security, to grant the tenants, at their own expense, a deferral of the rent payment for a period of up to 9 months. The appellant notes that for a number of lessors this will be a completely disproportionate and intolerable burden, as this will potentially deprive them of a source of income for a given period, from which they paid not only their cost of living, but also all the costs associated with leased properties, including maintenance or reconstruction, as well as loan instalments.
8. According to a group of Senators, Article 11 (4) of the Charter is in breach of the case. It follows from that provision that the compulsory restriction of ownership is only possible under the cumulative fulfilment of three conditions: the restriction can only take place in the public interest, it can only be implemented by law and for compensation. In the present case, only the first two conditions are met, but not the third condition, i.e. the limitation of the right of ownership for compensation. The contested laws foresee no form of even partial compensation for this up to three quarters of a year of restrictions on owners' ownership rights. Nor does the State guarantee that accumulated rental debts will be properly paid to the lessors.
9. A lessee who, as a result of the negative effects of the emergency measures, would not be able to pay rent could therefore be put in an unmanageable situation, as from his weakened income he would have to pay all of his current expenses, but also within a maximum period of 5 months (6 months for business premises), i.e. until the end of the term of the protection period, he would also have to obtain up to five times the amount (for business premises) of the monthly rent to cover his rent debt. Instead of helping, the tenant may find himself in even more difficult situations and debt traps. The appellant submits that there is therefore no guarantee for the lessor that the financially weakened tenants will be able to repay their rent debts properly by the end of the period of protection; On the contrary, it is almost doubtful that many will not succeed within the time limit, which represents a risk for the lessor that their claims will remain unsatisfied, and for the lessee that this represents a risk of execution, insolvency and civil disputes. The contested laws not only interfere with the owners' property rights, but also do not effectively fulfil the purpose, i.e. do not provide effective assistance to the tenants.
10. The appellant sees the violation of Article 3 (1) of the Charter in an unfounded and different approach and in the unequal provision of a different level of protection of fundamental human rights to different groups of society. While, in the case of the banking sector, the State, by means of guarantees, ensures the protection of their ownership rights, in the case of the lessors, is legally obliged to bear, within a period of three quarters of a year, the limitation of their ownership rights without any compensation or guarantee that the debts thus incurred will be paid. In this way, according to the appellant, there is a breach of the principle of equality of rights, and this constitutes an expression of pleasure in the exercise of state power.
11. The contested laws, according to the appellant, do not fulfil the proportionality test in either of its criteria and constitute a disproportionate and inadmissible interference with the basic rights of the lessor without effectively protecting and fulfilling the basic rights of the lessee. The criterion of suitability is not fulfilled because the contested laws do not provide effective assistance and all related burdens are transferred to the lessor. In relation to the criterion of necessity, the appellant submits that a number of other means could be chosen to address the problem of the tenants, on the basis of which the same result could be achieved, and that the stated objective would be better and more effectively achieved without interference with the fundamental rights of other population groups. Since the adoption of the contested laws does not maintain the balance of the burden and all economic burdens are transferred from one group of residents (tenants) to the other group of residents (lessors), which is significantly reduced by the source of income for the period in question, the proportionality criterion is not fulfilled either. The appellant sees the parallel of the current situation with the rent regulation, which was designated by the Constitutional Court as an unconstitutional [finding sp. zn. I. ÚS 489 / 05 of 6.4.2006 (N 80 / 41 CollNU 59)], since the principle of fair balance was not respected and was unduly burdened by the ownership of a category of owners and ordered unilaterally to grant rent from their resources.
12. In conclusion, the appellant states that, although it considers the contested laws to be unconstitutional, it is also aware of their need and potential negative effects and of the uncertainties that would arise in the event of their immediate abolition. It therefore proposes that the Constitutional Court should refer to the contested laws as unconstitutional and abolish them as such, but, in order to protect the legitimate interests and rights of the tenants, as well as in the interests of legal certainty, it would decide not to abolish them until the date of expiry of the protection period defined by the law, i.e. 31 December 2020.
Observations of participants and interveners on the proposal
13. The Constitutional Court, pursuant to Article 69 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the Law on the Constitutional Court), called upon the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic as parties to the proceedings and the Government, together with the Ombudsman as interveners, to comment on the application.
14. The Ombudsman did not intervene. The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate have spoken on the proposal. Their comments are summarised below (sub II (a) and II (b); the Government's comments include point II (c).
Observations of the Chamber of Deputies
15. The observations of the Chamber of Deputies of 24 June 2020 relate only to the formal aspects of the legislative process which led to the adoption of the contested legislation. The Chamber of Deputies stated that the two contested laws were dealt with in an abridged act under the provisions of § 99 of Act No. 90 / 1995 Coll., on the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of Procedure of the PS ') in a legislative emergency. The President of the Chamber of Deputies, by his decision No 41 of 19 March 2020, on the basis of a proposal from the Government on the same day, has declared a legislative emergency in accordance with Rule 99 (1) of the Rules of Procedure for the period from 19 March 2020 until the end of the emergency.
16. Draft Act 209 / 2020 Coll. was submitted by the Government to the Chamber of Deputies on 2. 4. 2020 (House Press No. 815, VIII. Election). On the same day, the Government submitted to the Chamber of Deputies a draft of Act No. 210 / 2020 Coll. (House Press 816, VIII. Election).
17. With regard to draft law 209 / 2020 Coll., the Chamber of Deputies agreed to the draft law, in the final vote of 96 Members in favour of the proposal, 65 voted against the proposal, 17 voted against. The Chamber of Deputies passed the Senate Bill on 9 April 2020, which discussed it on 16 April 2020 and returned it to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments. The bill returned by the Senate was discussed by the Chamber of Deputies on 22 April 2020 and adopted the bill in the version in which it was referred to the Senate. Of the 178 Members present, 121 voted in favour, 31 voted against. The President of the Republic signed the Act on 24 April 2020. The Act was published in the Collection of Laws in the amount of 74 sent out on 27 April 2020.
18. The Chamber of Deputies also agreed to the Government Bill No. 210 / 2020 Coll., in the final vote of 97 Members present, 76 voted in favour, 13 voted against. The Chamber of Deputies passed the Senate Bill on 9 April 2020, which it discussed at its meeting on 17 April 2020 and returned to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments. The bill returned by the Senate to the Chamber of Deputies was debated on 22 April 2020 and adopted the bill in the version in which it was referred to the Senate. Of the 173 Members present, 129 voted in favour, 25 voted against. The President of the Republic signed the Act on 24 April 2020. The Act was published in the Collection of Laws in the amount of 74 sent out on 27 April 2020.
Statement by the Senate
19. The Senate, in its observations of 25 June 2020, after recalling the argument of the proposal for the annulment of the laws in question, pointed out first of all that the appellant called for the annulment of both laws in their entirety, and its proposal aimed at the unconstitutionality of the relationship between the tenants and the lessors set out therein. It pointed out, however, that in addition to the provisions of Sections 2 to 4 concerning measures to mitigate the effects of the Coronavirus SARS CoV-2 epidemic on tenants of residential spaces, Section 5, dealing with the effects of the epidemic on the beneficiaries of the State Housing Development Fund, and Sections 6 and 7, including the issue of charging the costs of the use of apartments and non-residential spaces in the house with apartments, therefore two other distinct topics.
20. The two draft laws in question were delivered to the Senate on the same day, on 9 April 2020, after they were discussed by the Chamber of Deputies in an abridged act in the context of a declared state of legislative emergency (Senate Prints 234 and 239).
21. The Senate also notes that the debate in the Senate on both papers took place very similarly, when, in general, it sounded either to be rejected and the proposal was conceptually totally wrong or calls for amendments, because it is imperfect, but it is better to provide at least minimal protection for tenants. The bills examined were assigned by the Senate at the 20th session of the 12th term. First, Senate Document No 234 was discussed on 16 April 2020. The discussion was accompanied by an extensive debate, during which both criticism of the government bill and partial support, albeit critical, were heard. In its observations, the Senate also stated that the proposal for approval of the draft, as referred to by the Chamber of Deputies, had not been made, the motion for refusal had not been made, and after extensive discussion, the Senate decided to return the draft law as amended. 36 of the 43 senators present were in favour of returning the bill, no one was against it.
22. On 17 April 2020, Senate Document No 239 was also discussed by the Senate. The debate in the general debate was less critical than in relation to the previous press, but even this government bill was criticised as a lack of balancing the effects of the crisis on both sides: tenants and tenants. Finally, the Senate returned the bill to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments. The resolution voted 29 of the 36 senators present, no one opposed. An accompanying resolution was also adopted: "I, in view of the fact that the Senate considers the draft law submitted to be insufficient and includes fundamental legal defects, calls on the Government of the Czech Republic to establish an operational programme for drawing interest-free loans for tenants who are unable to pay rent as a result of the Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 epidemic." In the vote, 32 of the 36 senators present voted in favour and no one was against it. Finally, the Senate concludes in its observations that the Senate, when negotiating Laws 209 / 2020 Coll. and 210 / 2020 Coll., acted within the limits of the Constitution established competence and in a constitutional manner.
Government observations
23. At the outset, the Government, like the Senate, pointed out that a group of senators generally argues in relation to the possibility of "deferred" rents in both the contested laws, but fails to see the remaining provisions of the regulations, although it proposes the repeal of both laws as a whole. In the case of Act No. 209 / 2020 Coll. in particular, a group of Senators completely ignores other parts of the Act, namely the measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic on the recipients of the loan provided by the State Housing Development Fund and the part concerning the accounting of the costs of the use of flats and non-residential premises in the house.
24. In particular, in relation to the reasons for the adoption of the contested legislation, the Government stresses the need to address as quickly as possible the negative economic and social effects of the Coronavirus epidemic. In view of the extent of the measures taken, it refers to the explanatory notes to the contested laws and states that their main objective is to provide assistance to tenants of premises used to satisfy housing needs and tenants of premises serving business to bridge the period during which their income is affected and thus to avert the threat of termination of the lease on account of the rent not paid properly. The government points out that the contested laws are not intended to forgive rent but to postpone it for a limited period. The lessor therefore does not lose his rent payments, and the deferral of the rent only concerns those tenants who lost income as a result of exceptional measures. Moreover, the fact that exceptional measures have been so affected must be duly substantiated by the tenants. The government also adds that the urgency of this situation is also linked to the rent, which many households are able to pay in a difficult way even in a period of economic stability. It pointed out that the contested laws also allow the lessor to require the lease to be cancelled after the end of the emergency period (i.e. after 17 May 2020), unless he can reasonably require it to tolerate the restrictions to a specified extent. According to the Government's assumptions, the contested adjustment will fall into a relatively narrow range of entities, as the preferred option is to use the repayment schedule or other form of agreement between the lessee and the lessor. The Government also referred to a similar arrangement adopted in the Federal Republic of Germany, which does not provide for any compensation for the lessors and does not provide for any exceptions to Czech regulations. The Government pointed out that the contested laws are "paired" with other provisions adopted during the emergency situation, such as deferral of repayment of loans and financial loans. It is a logical chain in which the financial collateral of the borrowers who repay the loan is addressed precisely by the Moratorium on the repayment of loans provided for by Act No. 177 / 2020 Coll., on certain measures in the field of loan repayment in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic.
25. The appellant alleged infringement of Article 11 The Government notes that it is first necessary to examine whether the right of ownership is in conflict with another constitutionally guaranteed law or public interest. Such a general collision is characterised by the Government by the fact that, on the one hand, the Charter in Article 11 (1) guarantees the right of each person to own property, prohibits the abuse of property rights in the public interest in Article 11 (2) and the compulsory restriction of property rights (Article 11 (4) of the Charter); on the other hand, there is a public interest in the protection of persons in a weaker position, i.e. tenants, and the guarantee of their right normally referred to as "the right to an adequate standard of living within the meaning of Article 26 of the Charter '. In this context, the Government stresses that ownership is not unrestricted. It refers to the findings of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 42 / 03 of 28.3.2006 (N 72 / 40 SbNU 703; 280 / 2006 Coll.) and sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 20 / 05 of 28.2.2006 (N 47 / 40 SbNU 389; 252 / 2006 Coll.) in relation to the protection of apartment rental as a legitimate objective of the restriction of property rights and of the constitutionally acceptable conditions of rent regulation. The question of seeking a fair balance in the regulation of rental relations has also been repeatedly assessed by the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as" ESLP'), whose case law generally accepts the possibility of regulating various aspects of rental relationships. The limits set by the ECHR on State interference in private property are the principle of legality, the existence of a legitimate objective in the form of public interest and the achievement of a fair balance between the interest in the protection of property and the wider social interests. In the government's view, these limits are met, including the condition of fair balance. The suspension of the lessor's right to unilaterally terminate the lease is to be applied only in defined cases where the lessee has been delayed at a clearly defined time and as a result of exceptional measures. At the same time, the lessee must demonstrate his inability to pay the rent in a qualified manner. According to the Government, the protection of the lessee through contested laws is designed as an extreme measure to be applied where the lessee's situation cannot be resolved otherwise (e.g. by an agreement or a repayment schedule). This means that, for example, if the lessee had already received an appropriate benefit from the State social assistance system or assistance in material distress, he is obliged to pay the rent from that benefit and the legal protection would not apply to it.
26. According to the Government, by suspending the right of the lessor to unilaterally terminate the lease under specified conditions, the lessee is provided with effective assistance as they acquire time to deal with the financial situation. In the view of the Government, the regulatory objective could not be achieved without the adoption of new legislation or using another less restrictive measure. The Government does not consider the aid to be effective for tenants in the form of a benefit from the State Social Aid Scheme, given the need for an immediate resolution of the situation, with a significant time shift in the payment of benefits from the State Social Aid Scheme. As regards the appellant's argument that "the lessors will become unwilling loan providers', the Government stresses that the contested scheme will not deprive them of income, merely allowing them to spread payments over a longer period of time.
27. The Government recalled that the contested arrangements also provide for safeguards for the protection of the lessor, which allow it to terminate or cancel the lease before the end of the legal period (Sections 3 and 4 of the contested laws). The elimination of negative effects on the lessors is also reflected by the fact that it is without prejudice to the charterer's obligation to cover the costs of the services associated with the use of the apartment or premises for housing and any interest on late payments. According to the Government, the intervention in the constitutionally guaranteed right of ownership of property caused by the contested legislation is far from reaching such an intensity that it would fundamentally destroy the substance of the property right or cause potentially so-called choking effect in relation to the tenants as the Constitutional Court considers it in its case-law [cf.
28. As regards the alleged infringement of Article 11 (4) of the Charter, the Government expressed the view that the restriction of the right of the lessor to terminate the lease under the contested laws does not constitute a qualified restriction on property rights within the meaning of the opinion of plenary sp. v. Pl. ÚS-st. 27 / 09 of 28.4.2009 (ST 27 / 53 of the SbNU 885; 136 / 2009 Coll.) and the finding of sp. v. ÚS 3 / 2000 of 21.6.2000 (N 93 / 18 of the SbNU 287; 231 / 2000 Coll.), respectively. It follows from that caselaw that the content of the constitutionally guaranteed right of ownership of property within the meaning of Article 11 (1) of the Charter is not an unfettered and forced restriction of property right, as well as an expropriation pursuant to Article 11 (4) The Charter should only be applied to certain qualified cases of restriction (cf. Opinion sp. zn. Pl. ÚS-st. 27 / 09). It follows from the ECHR case-law that Article 1 (2) of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention ') provides States with the right to adopt laws which they consider necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (Mellacher and Ost. v. Austria, 19.12.1989, A-169). In the case of contested laws, the restriction on the part of the lessors is de facto in the form of a mere delay in the receipt of the profits, if any. In this context, the Government points out the finding of sp. zn. The contested laws, in the view of the Government, only partially and only temporarily interfere with the owners' ownership rights. Only the possibility to terminate the lease is suspended because of the delay in paying the rent that caused the epidemic measures. The contested laws do not affect the right to terminate the lease for other reasons. The Government points out that the appellant completely ignores that the ban on termination of the lease is not absolute.
29. The Government also disagrees with the applicant's reservation in respect of infringement of Article 26 (3) of the Charter. It reiterates the complexity of the emergency measures resulting from the coronavirus epidemic. The government has taken a number of compensatory measures, etc. It points out that the purpose of the contested laws is not to provide citizens with material security, but only to protect for a transitional period one particular good which is of particular importance: in the case of the rental of business premises it aims to safeguard the stability and continuity of the economy as a whole; in the case of rental housing to protect the decent life of a person. If only direct or indirect State aid were to be relied on in such cases, there would be a risk of default. The Government also points out that the exercise of the right enshrined in Article 26 (3) of the Charter depends on implementing legislation and the real possibilities of the State to cover the expenditure on the physical security of citizens. The contested laws are without prejudice to any claims for compliance under the social security scheme. It is undisputed, the government states that the pandemic will have negative financial implications for all components and groups of the population as well as for the state. The government considers the proposed carry-over of social burdens between population groups to be impossible. In the case of contested laws, it is not a permanent arrangement of rental relationships and the measures taken have only a short-term effect in response to the current need to protect tenants.
30. The Government also opposed the appellant's argument on the infringement of Article 3 (1) of the Charter, which is intended to consist of a different approach by the State to secure bank sector claims and to secure lessors' claims. In the Government's view, this approach cannot be regarded as discrimination because it is not comparable in any respect and the range of regulated relationships is fundamentally different. The State guarantee, as invoked by the appellant, would, in the case of the lessors, perform a significantly different function from that of the State guarantee for loans to business entities. In this context, the Government points out that the availability of bank loans has a significant impact on the economy as a whole. In the case of the banking sector, the State guarantee fulfils in particular an incentive function and its purpose is to ensure continuity in the provision of bank loans to business entities. On the contrary, in the case of the rent owed, the guarantee would primarily fulfil the reinsurance function, which would primarily seek to protect the individual interest of the lessor. The position of the lessors under the contested laws can be compared to the position of the borrowers under the above Act No. 177 / 2020 Coll., on certain measures in the field of loan repayment in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, which are legally obliged to suffer a deferral of repayment of their loans. Even in this case, no State guarantee is provided.
31. In conclusion, the Government notes that the contested laws can only be understood as a temporary restriction on the owner in the exercise of his right to unilaterally terminate the lease of specified premises. It expressed its view that in the present case all the criteria laid down in the legal regulation of the relationships of tenants and tenants are met both by constitutional order and by the case law of the Supreme Courts. The contested legal regulation follows a clearly identifiable legitimate objective. In doing so, the right of owners to use the property peacefully is in a fair balance to the public interest in protecting the tenants. At the same time, the property owners' rights are not affected by the legislation in question in such an intensive way that, pursuant to Article 11 (4), It was necessary for the State to provide compensation to the lessors for adjusting the use of the assets, i.e. financial compensation or special State guarantees. The Government therefore considers the two contested laws to be fully constitutional and proposes that the proposal in question be rejected.
Replication of the appellant
32. In a reply, the appellant reiterates its belief that the contested laws not only constitute a discriminatory and inadmissible restriction on the owners' property rights, but it is also questionable whether the public interest and the need for this intervention is at all given. It points out that it is in times of crisis that it is very important to pay close attention to the adequacy of the measures taken and to give them more critical consideration, because it is in times like these that fundamental rights and freedoms are most easily violated. According to the appellant, the caselaw referred to by the Government is impossible as it is not a matter of adopting general rules setting limits on ownership but of taking targeted ad hoc measures to deprive owners of leased properties of certain rights for a specified period of time, thereby forcing them to take over the burden on tenants and the effects of the crisis on their own shoulders. The appellant points out that the contested laws are discriminatory, as they ignore the fact that, in terms of the effects of the pandemic, owners of leased properties are affected in the same way as other population groups, and they can feel the loss of income quite equivalent to the tenants. As regards the Government's argument concerning the opposition to the claim that the State's access to the lessors is unreasonably different from that of the banking sector, the appellant states that the biggest difference is that, in the case of the lessors, they are mainly individuals affected by the effects of the pandemic, in the case of the banking sector, they are rich and influential multinational institutions. While they are given guarantees to lend to people and firms in need, the tenants are not so influential as to achieve a similar approach from the government.
33. A group of Senators pointed out that the exemption from the ban on the termination of the lease pursuant to Article 4 of the contested laws does not consider it an effective insurance policy, given the possibilities of the tenants to defend themselves from any termination by a proposal for its judicial review. Furthermore, it disputes the alleged urgency and need for an immediate resolution of the emergency situation, as evidenced by a small number of requests from tenants to issue a confirmation that the delay in the payment of the rent occurred for demonstrable reasons linked to the effects of the coronavirus epidemic (a total of 56). According to the appellant, this indicates that the tenants themselves have come to the conclusion that the measures taken do not solve their difficult situation in any way and have decided not to use this legal possibility at all. Therefore, the need for the measures taken was not necessary and was not of public interest.
Active procedural legitimacy and management conditions
34. According to Article 64 (1) (b) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, a group of at least 17 senators may submit an application for annulment of the law or its individual provisions. This proposal was made by a group of 31 senators. In accordance with Article 64 (5) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 320 / 2002 Coll., it also attached to it a signature document to which each of them individually confirmed that it was attached to the application. A group of senators therefore fulfils the condition of active legitimacy.
35. The proposal contains all other legal requirements and is admissible within the meaning of the provisions of Section 66 of the Constitutional Court Act. At the same time, there are no grounds for terminating the procedure under Section 67 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll. The Constitutional Court ruled on the application without a regulation of oral proceedings, since it did not carry out the taking of evidence within the meaning of Article 44 of the Constitutional Court Act and further clarification of the case could not be expected from the hearing.
Procedure for the adoption of the contested provisions
36. The Constitutional Court in the Intentions § 68 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., examined whether the contested laws had been adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down by competence and in a constitutional manner. It concluded that there is nothing to blame the legislator in this regard. Moreover, the parties to the proceedings do not mention any legislative deficit. The Constitutional Court refers to a summary of the legislative process in the statements of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.
Derogation of the contested laws
37. Act No. 209 / 2020 Coll. reads:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, an emergency situation declared in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of the Constitutional Law on Security of the Czech Republic by the Government of the Czech Republic in 2020 due to health threats related to the detection of a new coronavirus (known as SARS CoV-2) in the Czech Republic.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, exceptional measures in the event of an epidemic shall mean:
(a) a crisis measure under Section 2 (c) of the Crisis Act adopted by the Government of the Czech Republic at a time of emergency,
(b) an emergency measure issued in 2020 by the Ministry of Health on the basis of Articles 69 (1) (b), 69 (2) and 80 (1) (g) of the Act on the Protection of Public Health for the Protection of the Population and the Prevention of the Risk of the Development and Expansion of the Disease of COVID-19 caused by the new Coronavirus SARS CoV-2;
(c) an exceptional measure issued in 2020 by the Regional Health Station on the basis of § 69 (1) (b), § 69 (2), § 82 (1) and § 82 (2) (m) of the Act on Public Health Protection to prevent the further spread of the disease of COVID-19 caused by the new Coronavirus SARS CoV-2.
(3) For the purposes of this Act, the deadline shall be 12 March 2020 until the day following the date of the expiry of the emergency measures in the event of an epidemic, but not later than 31 July 2020.
(4) For the purposes of this Act, a protective period shall mean the period from the date of entry into force of this Act until 31 December 2020.
Measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic on tenants of premises used to satisfy housing needs
(1) Paragraph 2 to 4 shall apply to the rental of an apartment, house or part thereof, if the purpose of the lease is to satisfy the tenant's housing needs. Paragraph 2 to 4 shall apply mutatis mutandis to subletting an apartment, house or part thereof, if the purpose of subletting is to satisfy the dwelling's needs.
(2) An arrangement derogating from the provisions of this Act to the detriment of the lessee shall not be taken into account.
(1) The lessor cannot unilaterally terminate the lease in the period of protection on the sole ground that the lessee is late in paying the rent if the lease was delayed
(a) at the relevant time; and
(b) mainly as a result of restrictions resulting from exceptional measures in the event of an epidemic which prevented or significantly impeded the proper payment of rent.
(2) The provision of paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the right of the lessor to terminate the lease for other reasons or to other rights of the lessor resulting from the lease delay.
(3) The lessee shall demonstrate to the lessor, without undue delay and with certainty appropriate to the facts available, the circumstances of the delay referred to in paragraph 1 (b), a confirmation from the competent office of the work of the Czech Republic, to which the lessee must document the supporting documents, the form and formalities of which are laid down in a methodological instruction.
(4) If the lessee does not pay all the rent claims due at the relevant time, the lessor shall have the right to terminate the lease without notice. The lessor shall have this right even if the lessee or the lessee declare otherwise undoubted that they will not pay these claims even in the period of protection.
(1) The lessor may, after the circumstances referred to in Article 3 (1) (b) have ceased, but first after the end of the emergency situation, require the lease to be cancelled, unless he can reasonably require him to tolerate the restriction to a specified extent, in particular if, as a result of the restriction, he might fall into such an emergency that he will not have his own or the necessary nutrition of the person for whom he is legally obliged to feed.
(2) If the parties fail to assess the application, the court shall decide on the cancellation of the lease referred to in paragraph 1.
Measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic on the beneficiaries of the loan granted by the State Housing Development Fund
(1) The State Housing Development Fund may, at the request of the beneficiary of the credit, defer the maturity of the repayment of the principal and accessories of the loan for a period up to 30 November 2020 if the beneficiary of the loan proves that the loan is unable to repay the loan resulting from an emergency epidemic. The beneficiary of the loan may not be required to pay the costs associated with the execution of the application or any other remuneration in connection with the submission of the application under the first sentence.
(2) In the case referred to in paragraph 1, the total repayment period shall be extended by the period for which repayment of the principal and the credit facilities has been deferred.
Settlement and financial settlement of performance costs associated with the use of flats and non-residential premises in the housing
For the purposes of Articles 6 and 7:
(a) by the service provider of services pursuant to § 2 (a) of Act No. 67 / 2013 Coll., adjusting certain issues related to the provision of services related to the use of apartments and non-residential spaces in the house with apartments, as amended by Act No. 104 / 2015 Coll. ("the Services Act '),
(b) the recipient of the services of the recipient pursuant to § 2 (b) of the Services Act; and
(c) by billing the bill pursuant to § 2 (f) of the Services Act.
The obligation of the service provider to deliver a service bill to the service recipient which would have been achieved after the date of entry into force of this Act and before 31 August 2020 shall be deemed to be an adult on 1 September 2020.
Efficacy
This Act shall take effect on the day of its publication.
38. Act No. 210 / 2020 Coll. reads:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, an emergency situation declared in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 of the Constitutional Law on Security of the Czech Republic by the Government of the Czech Republic in 2020 due to health threats related to the detection of a new coronavirus / known as SARS CoV-2 / in the Czech Republic.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, exceptional measures in the event of an epidemic shall mean:
(a) a crisis measure under Section 2 (c) of the Crisis Act adopted by the Government of the Czech Republic at a time of emergency,
(b) an emergency measure issued in 2020 by the Ministry of Health on the basis of Articles 69 (1) (b), 69 (2) and 80 (1) (g) of the Act on the Protection of Public Health for the Protection of the Population and the Prevention of the Risk of the Development and Expansion of the Disease of COVID-19 caused by the new Coronavirus SARS CoV-2;
(c) an exceptional measure issued in 2020 by the Regional Health Station on the basis of § 69 (1) (b), § 69 (2), § 82 (1) and § 82 (2) (m) of the Act on Public Health Protection to prevent the further spread of the disease of COVID-19 caused by the new Coronavirus SARS CoV-2.
(3) For the purposes of this Act, the deadline is 12 March 2020 to 30 June 2020.
(4) For the purposes of this Act, a protective period shall mean the period from the date of entry into force of this Act until 31 December 2020.
(1) The provisions of this Act shall apply to the rental or subletting of premises or rooms (hereinafter referred to as "rental '), where the purpose of the lease is to conduct business activities in that area or in that room and where the space or room serves at least primarily for business, regardless of whether the purpose of the lease is expressed (hereinafter referred to as" business space').
(2) The provisions of this law shall also apply to the pacht, provided that a substantial part of the object of the pacht is an area serving business.
(3) An arrangement derogating from the provisions of this Act to the detriment of the lessee is not taken into account.
(1) The lessor cannot unilaterally terminate the lease in the period of protection only on the grounds that the lessee is late in paying the rent associated with the use of the business space if the delay occurred
(a) at the relevant time; and
(b) as a result of restrictions resulting from exceptional measures in the event of an epidemic which have made it impossible or significantly difficult to conduct business.
(2) The provision of paragraph 1 shall be without prejudice to the right to terminate the lease for other reasons or to other rights of the lessor resulting from the lease delay.
(3) The lessor shall submit to the lessor the instruments certifying compliance with the conditions referred to in paragraph 1 (b) within 15 days of the date on which the first delay in the payment of the rent referred to in paragraph 1 occurred.
(4) The lessee shall be obliged to pay all claims which have become due at the relevant time and which the lessee has not properly paid until the end of the period of protection. If the lessee does not pay all the rental debts that have become due at the relevant time during the period of protection, the lessor shall have the right to terminate the lease; the period of notice shall be 5 days. The lessor is entitled to this right even if the lessee declares that he will not pay these debts on rent or in protective periods.
(5) If the lease expires or ends before the expiry of the term of protection, the lessee shall be obliged to pay all claims that have become due within 30 days of the termination or termination of the lease.
The lessor may, after the circumstances referred to in Paragraph 3 (1) (b) have passed, but not earlier than the end of the emergency situation, require the lease to be cancelled, unless it can be fairly required to tolerate the restrictions to the extent specified.
This Act shall take effect on the day of its publication.
Meritorious review of the proposal
39. In particular, the applicant submits that the contested laws are contrary to Article 11 (4) of the Charter, since no compensation is granted for the compulsory restriction of property rights. On that basis, the Constitutional Court notes, first of all, that the appellant fails to see that that provision cannot be interpreted as a fundamental right to compensation for any restriction on the right of ownership laid down by law. The Constitutional Court, in its Opinion in sp. zn. Pl. ÚS- st. 27 / 09 on compensation for the compulsory restriction of property rights pursuant to Article 11 (4) of the Charter in matters of the anti-constitutional regulation of rent, stated that the content of the constitutionally guaranteed right to own property pursuant to Article 11 (1) of the Charter, as well as the right to use property peacefully under Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention, is not unfettered and is subject to a number of restrictions which can be considered to be immune from the constitutional guarantee to its constitutional and, consequently, legal definition. The Constitutional Court expressly states that "the law may in general lay down limits on property rights without such a restriction being linked to the right to compensation. Forced restriction of the right of ownership as well as you of ownership pursuant to Article 11 (4) The Charter should therefore only be applied to certain qualified cases of restrictions'. At the same time, he noted that the intensity of its restrictions, which has several aspects, also has an important role to play in assessing the constitutionality of the right of ownership: in particular, the scope of the restriction itself and its duration, i.e. whether it is temporary or permanent. Therefore, any restriction on ownership does not fall within the scope of Article 11 (4) of the Charter. In that regard, the Constitutional Court also stated in its caselaw that as a restriction on property rights within the meaning of Article 11 (4) of the Charter," only a restriction which precludes the exercise of ownership rights in whole or to the extent that it significantly prevents the exercise of ownership rights in one of its components' [finding sp. zn. These conclusions of the case-law also constitute relevant grounds for assessing the proposal.
40. At the same time, the appellant overlooks another characteristic of ownership, which is the social function of ownership, as defined in Article 11 (3) of the Charter. The importance of the social function of ownership is repeatedly highlighted by the Constitutional Court in interpreting property law. In the finding of sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 27 / 16 of 18.12.2018 (N 200 / 91 SbNU 485; 51 / 2019 Coll.), he thus stressed that the ownership "cannot serve only as the owner's estate over the object, but as the owner at the same time obliges him to behave '. The specific character of Article 11 (3) of the Charter of the Constitutional Court was defined in the finding of the sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 34 / 03 of 13.12.2006 (N 226 / 43 of the SbNU 541; 49 / 2007 Coll.), which stated that this provision is not typical of the fact that it does not provide subjective constitutional rights, but of the obligation:" First of all, it expresses the principle that it commits ownership. This principle expresses the fact that - although the right of ownership must be regarded as an absolute right which allows the protection of the owner against all - the right of the owner has limits which may conflict with the legitimate interests of others and society as a whole. Thus, the absolute ownership as a legal relationship is not entirely unlimited and is not, absolute ′ to the consequences. In the spirit of legal-political maxima, individual law ends where the rights of the second' must therefore also be interpreted as meaning the exercise of ownership. '
41. A further starting point for a meritorre review of the contested laws concerns the situation in which the contested laws were adopted. If the appellant states that, in exceptional situations such as emergency situations, the principles of the democratic rule of law and fundamental rights and the freedom of the people are most at risk, it is therefore necessary to ensure that they are not infringed in a consistent manner, it cannot be said to be true. However, this appeal also has a second aspect in relation to the present case, namely that it is in exceptional situations where the social and economic status of the population and the dignified conditions of life are threatened and weakened, that social ownership functions are particularly important, and that is precisely the relation to the interpretation of fair balance.
42. On the alleged infringement of Article 11 (4) of the Charter, the appellant contends that, in the case of the contested laws, the condition that the restriction of property rights is only admissible for compensation is not fulfilled. It argues that, according to both the literature and the case-law (which it did not specify), the obligation of the State to compensate the owner limited to his rights results from the principle of equal distribution of public burdens for all citizens and the principle of equality before the law. The appellant submits that, in assessing whether an intervention in property law under Article 11 (4) The Charter respects the principle of proportionality and a fair balance is maintained between the conflicting interests of the company, it is necessary to base itself on the proportionality test.
43. The Constitutional Court therefore examined whether, in the case of the contested laws, the presumption of public interest and the relationship of proportionality to the legitimate objective pursued was fulfilled. It will therefore be measured whether the legislator respected the principle of proportionality and reached a fair balance between conflicts of interests. The principle that restrictions on fundamental rights must, in particular, meet the requirements of the rule of law and meet the requirements of the proportionality test also applies to law issued in an emergency state.
44. The principle of proportionality, in accordance with the settled case law of the Constitutional Court, includes three principles and criteria for assessing the admissibility of intervention. It is the principle of eligibility for purpose (or suitability), the principle of necessity and proportionality (proportionality in the narrower sense). For example, the findings of sp. zn.
45. As regards the first step of the proportionality test, the Constitutional Court states, first of all, that the contested laws need to be assessed in the context of the situation in which they were adopted, namely the emergency situation. The Government declared an emergency situation on the basis of Articles 5 and 6 of Constitutional Act No. 110 / 1998 Coll., on the safety of the Czech Republic, by Resolution No. 69 / 2020 Coll., because of "health threats related to the detection of coronavirus (known as SARS CoV-2) in the Czech Republic." In its resolution on the announcement of an emergency situation, the Government stated that the emergency situation was announced from 14.00 a.m. on 12.3.2020 for a period of 30 days, while at the same time ordering emergency measures in accordance with § 5 (a) to (e) and § 6 of Act No. 240 / 2000 Coll., on crisis management and on the amendment of certain laws (Crisis Act), as amended by a separate resolution. The government then adopted a number of radical emergency or crisis measures to protect health as a result of the Coronavirus epidemic, which severely reduced a number of fundamental rights and freedoms, which have fundamentally affected the social and economic life of the population.
46. In the case of the contested laws, the public interest and therefore the purpose of the legal regulation (in line with the finding of the sp. zn. This reason for legal regulation and the means to achieve it are specified in the explanatory notes to the two contested laws. According to the Government, the main objective of the contested laws is "to help tenants to satisfy housing needs and tenants to bridge the period during which their income is affected and thus to avert the threat of termination due to a duly unpaid rent '.
47. The Constitutional Court concluded that, in the present case, the principle of suitability (legitimate purpose) was fulfilled, as the contested laws can undoubtedly lead to the achievement of the public interest pursued above. The appellant's argument that the contested laws do not meet this objective is that the lessee is not sufficiently protected by exceptional measures and, on the contrary, may find themselves in a more complex situation and a debt trap is at a level of speculation. Indeed, it is clear from the nature of the two contested laws that the tenants did not have to make any use of the benefit offered if they actually felt that they were being harmed. Other facts, such as the lack of protection of tenants against a civil claim for payment, which the lessor may also submit in the interim period, or the obligation to pay all the rent due, including the increasing interest on late payments, may also occur, irrespective of the contested legislation, to a much wider or more serious extent for the lessee.
48. In the second step of the proportionality test, i.e. the examination of the principle of necessity, the Constitutional Court notes that, in the context of the announcement of an emergency situation and the adoption of crisis measures significantly affecting the normal social and economic life of citizens, there is no need to overlook the important aspect of the urgency of dealing with this situation. In such a situation, the contested laws constitute a solution to a situation where, as a result of exceptional measures, tenants objectively restrict their social and economic situation, or the possibility of obtaining income from their business or other work activities, cannot pay full rent. In this sense, a government position which stated that if the contested regulation had not been adopted, relying solely on direct or indirect State aid, would have been in danger of default, thereby putting firms at risk of failure to operate or insolvent, or residents of residential emergency, in a specific risk situation of an ongoing coronary epidemic. The point of need in relation to the limitation of property rights must also be seen in the context of other emergency measures taken during the emergency situation, e.g. the possibility of deferring repayment of loans and loans. As pointed out by the Government in its observations, the borrowers who repay the loan can use the moratorium on the repayment of loans under Act No. 177 / 2020 Coll., on certain measures in the field of loan repayment in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, if the appellant claims that a number of other means could be chosen to address the current problem of tenants, which would have been able to fulfil the objective pursued better and more effectively - such as by amending Act No. 117 / 1995 Coll., on State Social Support, as amended, in relation to the provision of the housing allowance - it also ignores the above-mentioned options, as amended by the Act No 117 / 1995 Coll., on State Social Support, as amended, in relation to the provision of the housing allowance, as well as the provisions of the contested laws themselves. In fact, they provide for exceptions aimed at protecting tenants: the possibility of termination of the lease even before the expiry of the term of protection in the case of both laws or the deferral of credit payments granted by the State Housing Development Fund in the case of tenants of premises used to satisfy housing needs. In the present situation, the Constitutional Court concluded that the contested laws also fulfil the second precondition of the proportionality test, i.e. the criterion of necessity.
49. As regards the third step of the proportionality test, that is to say proportionality (proportionality in the narrower sense), it should be pointed out first of all that, when applying it in relation to the property law, the Constitutional Court, in its case-law, acts with emphasis on the social function of ownership as expressed in Article 11 (3) of the Charter (see, for example, the sp. zn. According to that provision, ownership is committed; shall not be misused to harm the rights of others or in contravention of legally protected general interests. Its performance must not damage human health, nature and the environment beyond the standards laid down by law. In the present case, the fact already highlighted above cannot also be disregarded, i.e. that, as a result of the exceptional measures taken in the context of the Coronavirus epidemic, the social function of ownership is of particular importance.
50. In assessing the principle of proportionality when comparing the conflict of public interest in order to protect life within the meaning of the decent social and existential conditions of the tenants and the fundamental right of the owners of the lessors, the Constitutional Court states the following matters relevant to the examination of the constitutionality of the contested regulation. In the case of the two contested laws, it is only a temporary restriction on one of the components of ownership, the duration of which is specifically defined in the law. The term of protection, i.e. the period during which the lessor cannot unilaterally terminate the lease on the sole ground that the lessee is late in paying the rent, is defined in the two contested laws from the date of entry into force of the Act (i.e. 27.4.2020) until 31.12.2020 (§ 1 (4) of Act No. 209 / 2020 Coll. and § 1 (4) of Act No. 210 / 2020 Coll.). In the case of the rental of premises intended for housing, the period shall be from 12.3.2020 to the day following the date of the end of the emergency measures for the epidemic, but not later than 31.7.2020 (Section 1 (3) of Act No 209 / 2020 Coll.). For the purpose of renting premises for business purposes, the period shall be defined as from 12.3.2020 to 30.6.2020 (Section 1 (3) of Act No. 210 / 2020 Coll.).
51. If the appellant claims that, as a result of the contested measures, the source of the lessor's income is, for more than three quarters of the year, strictly limited in principle, which may also be in a situation where they are unable to pay their debts, it should be noted that the contested laws take this situation into account. In the case of both contested laws, the possibility to terminate the lease even before the expiry of the term of protection is provided that the lessee does not pay all the claims that have become due at the relevant time, or if the lessee or the lessee otherwise declares that they will not pay those claims even in the period of protection: for the lease of apartments without notice (Section 3 (4) of Act No 209 / 2020 Coll.) and in the case of the lease of premises serving business with notice of 5 days (Section 3 (4) of Act No 210 / 2020 Coll.). The contested laws are also without prejudice to the obligation of the lessee to pay the cost of services related to the use of the apartment or the premises used for housing, and to interest on late payment of the rent.
52. At the same time, the two contested laws provide for the possibility for the lessor, after the circumstances arising from the emergency measure have ceased, or at the earliest after the end of the emergency situation, to request the cancellation of the lease, if it is not fair to require it to tolerate the restriction of the specified scope (Section 4 of Act No. 210 / 2020 Coll.), or if, as a result of the restriction, it could be in such an emergency that it would not have the necessary nutrition of the person for whom it is required under the law (§ 4 (1) of Act No. 209 / 2020 Coll.).
53. Act No. 209 / 2020 Coll. also contains - as is apparent from its name - provisions on measures to mitigate the effects of the epidemic on the recipient of the loan provided by the State Housing Development Fund. According to that provision, the State Housing Development Fund may, at the request of the beneficiary of the loan, defer the repayment of the repayment of the principal and accessories of the loan for a period expiring on 30 November 2020 if the beneficiary of the loan proves to be unable to repay the loan resulting from the emergency measures. The beneficiary of the loan may not be required to pay the costs associated with the execution of the application or any other remuneration in connection with the submission of the application under the first sentence. The total repayment period of the loan shall be extended, in the case referred to in paragraph 1, by the period for which the repayment of principal and credit accessories has been deferred (Section 5 of Act No. 209 / 2020 Coll.).
54. The Constitutional Court notes that, in the case of the contested laws, it is therefore a deferral of rent, for a limited period, and only in the case of those tenants who duly demonstrate that their income has fallen as a result of exceptional measures. It is appropriate to emphasise at this point that this is not a lease waiver, but a guarantee for the lessee, that due to the delay in the payment of the rent resulting from exceptional measures in the period and provided that the rent is paid by the end of 2020 at the latest, they will not be fired from the lease (cf. KUBOVÁ BARTKOVÁ, A., PAVLÍK, J. The effect of coronavirus on contractual relations with a particular focus on rental and transport. Legal perspective, 2020, No 12). On the other hand, in the contested laws, account is also taken of the situation in which the lease constitutes the sole source of the lessor's income and would thus be jeopardised by its essential needs as well as the situation in which the lessee does not pay or it is clear that it will not repay the claims that have become due at the relevant time. As regards the costs of services associated with the use of an apartment or premises for business purposes, their reimbursement is not affected by the contested scheme. The appellant's argument in the reply to the Government's observations that the low number of renters' requests for confirmation that the delay in the payment of the rent was due for demonstrable reasons linked to the effects of the Coronavirus epidemic (56 in total) indicates that the chosen solution does not constitute an effective solution to the problem, or that the need for such measures was not of public interest. Indeed, a low number of applications may also testify to the Government's argument that the protection of tenants under the contested laws has been designed as an extreme solution to be applied where the situation of the lessee cannot be resolved otherwise, e.g. by an agreement between the lessee and the lessor or the rescheduling calendar.
55. It remains to be heard on the objection of a group of senators, consisting of parallel contested legislation with the rent regulation. The appellant chose, in support of its argument, a reference to the finding of page I of the ÚS 489 / 05, the facts of which are neither relevant to the present case. In that finding, the Constitutional Court found an infringement of the right to judicial protection and, ultimately, an infringement of the right to the protection of property pursuant to Article 11 (1) of the Charter as a result of the procedure of general courts which dismissed the complainant's action to pay an amount equal to the difference between the normal and regulated lease with reference to the absence of an implementing law, i.e. a provision allowing a unilateral increase in the lease by the lessor's legal act. The Constitutional Court based its decision on the conclusion that it is not permissible for the Court to reject the judgment on the grounds of "silence, ambiguity or inadequacy of the law '; such a case would be a denial of justice - denegatio iustiae. However, this is a completely different situation from the one currently under consideration. Arguments of the finding of sp. zn. I. ÚS 489 / 05 are therefore extraordinary in relation to the proposal currently under consideration. The nature of the finding, sp. zn. I. ÚS 489 / 05 consists in criticising the absence of legislation allowing unilateral increases in rent in apartments, or the conclusion of the obligation of the courts - despite the absence of such regulation - to decide to increase rent.
56. The Constitutional Court, however, did not rule out the price regulation of rent from apartments in its other case-law on rent regulation. In the decision sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 3 / 2000, by which the Constitutional Court annulled on 31 December 2001 the Decree on the price regulation of rent from flats (i.e. Decree No. 176 / 1993 Coll., on rental from the apartment and payment for transactions provided with use of the apartment, as amended), the Constitutional Court recognised the importance of the protection of housing as one of the aspects of the social state, which is also the Czech Republic. He stated that the objective of the protection of tenants has been continuously pursued since the 1920s (Act No. 275 / 1920 Coll. and n. on the protection of tenants, Act No. 130 / 1922 Coll. and n. on the protection of tenants, Act No. 44 / 1928 Coll. and later on on the protection of tenants) and later on in the post-war period, or by the issuance of Civil Code (No. 141 / 1950 Coll. and No. 40 / 1964 Coll.). He stated that although Parliament did not include the right of residence in the category of fundamental rights and freedoms, all the adjustments to date appear to be in line with what is referred to in international human rights and fundamental freedoms as "the right of each individual to an adequate standard of living for him and his family, including adequate nutrition, clothing, apartment, and constant improvement of living conditions' (Article 11 (1) of the International Pact on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, hereinafter referred to as the" Pact '). Similarly, Article 16 of the European Social Charter and Article 4 of the Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter, which have been ratified and declared by the Czech Republic (under No 14 / 2000 Coll. s. and No 15 / 2000 Coll. s.), also addresses the issue of housing. According to the General remarks of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights No 4 of 1991, the right to sufficient (reasonable) housing includes, inter alia, the aspect of the rental capacity. The amount of the rent paid by an individual or the cost of the use of an apartment should be at a level which does not threaten or undermine the satisfaction of other essential needs. According to these remarks, the contracting States should generally proceed in such a way that the percentage of the cost of housing is not disproportionate to income. They should therefore adjust the rent contributions to those who do not have the means to pay the rent, as well as the modality and level of the rent, which faithfully reflect the needs of this issue. In accordance with the principle of respect for the ability to pay rent, tenants should be protected by appropriate measures against excessive rent or excessive increases in rent. This right enshrined in Article 11 For the reasons set out above, the Constitutional Court considers the Pact to be an objective for which our State, as amended by this Article, is obliged to take "appropriate action." In addition, the Constitutional Court stated that "the Charter, as a constitutional law, did not expressly mention the right to protect an adequate standard of living, including housing, between declared social rights. However, this circumstance does not in any way disqualify the constitutional relevance of this right enshrined in... international treaties' (the find sp. zn.
57. In the find sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 3 / 2000 The Constitutional Court also referred to the judgment of the ECHR Mellacher and Ost. v Austria. It stated that in that decision, in which the Court "found no infringement of Article 1 of Additional Protocol No 1 to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the event of a complaint by several property owners against the introduction of regulation and hence a de facto reduction in rent ', it" concluded that the measure aimed at regulating rent could not be regarded as a formal or de facto expropriation, since there was neither the transfer of the property of the complainants nor the right to use, rent or sell it. The contested measures, which undoubtedly deprived them of part of the proceeds from their assets, can be seen under the circumstances as controlling the use of those assets. Second paragraph of Article 1 Additional Protocol No 1 gives States the right to adopt such laws as they deem necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest (general interest ′). Such laws are particularly necessary and common in the area of housing, which in modern societies becomes the central issue of social and economic policy. In order to implement such a policy, legislation must have a wide margin of discretion... ("margin of appreciation'), both in determining whether there is a public interest which justifies the application of guidance (control) measures and also in selecting detailed rules for the implementation of such measures'.
58. As is apparent from the above, neither the Constitutional Court nor the ECHR generally rule out any regulation of rent from apartments. For the existence of legitimate reasons, the State can regulate ownership and thus interfere with market relations. The Constitutional Court summarises that the contested laws, which provide for the mitigation of negative social and economic impacts on tenants of premises used to satisfy housing needs and on tenants of premises used for business, fulfil the condition of suitability and necessity in the light of the legitimate objective of the above public interest. When comparing the proportionality of the interference in the right of owners under the above-mentioned assumptions, on the one hand, and the public interest and the limits of restraint resulting from the social function of ownership, on the other hand, the Constitutional Court concluded that the positive effects of the present case were predominant, representing a public interest in the protection of the social and economic living conditions of tenants. From this point of view, it is also necessary to look at the principle of fair balance, in terms of the level of protection of tenants, or the social role of ownership in relation to the temporary limitation of owners. The Constitutional Court thus finds that the contested laws do not constitute a restriction on the right of ownership which, by its (negative) consequences for the owners concerned, goes beyond the public interest (legitimate objectives of the law) and the contested laws themselves. The contested laws therefore also fulfil the condition of proportionality. The Constitutional Court therefore concludes in this part that the contested laws have passed the proportionality test.
59. At the same time, the Constitutional Court does not support the view of a group of Senators that the contested regulation is contrary to Article 11 (4) of the Charter. The discriminatory nature of the contested laws is that, while, in the case of the banking sector, the State guarantee model was adopted by the State in the COVID I, COVID II, COVID Praha COVID III programmes, in the case of private tenants, their ownership is restricted without any compensation or guarantee.
60. In this context, it should be borne in mind, in particular, that in order to characterise a State as discriminatory, two conditions should be met in accordance with Article 3 (1) of the Charter: on the one hand, inequality in access to fundamental rights and freedoms must be established, on the other hand, discrimination must take place for a qualified reason (e.g. because of sex, race, colour of the skin, language, faith and religion, political or other thinking, national or social origin, membership of a national or ethnic minority, property, gender or other status, or other reason, such as finding sp. However, the appellant does not state such a discriminatory reason, or merely states that the banking sector "has a strong economic position in the country's economy and a better negotiator '. The Constitutional Court notes that it cannot be concluded that the owners and the banking sector are two mutually discriminatory groups, where the discriminatory reason would consist of belonging to one of those groups. The Constitutional Court adds to this that, as regards alleged discrimination in relation to Article 11 of the Charter and discrimination in equality in rights or equality in the limits of fundamental human rights and freedoms referred to in Article 4 (3) of the Charter, it must be noted that, in relation to property law, the two groups are quite different in nature to the exercise of property law and the way in which it is exercised.
61. Finally, as regards the appellant's argument on Article 26 (3) of the Charter, the Constitutional Court must first of all recall the conclusions of its constant case-law [see, for example, the finding of sp. zn. This is because the principle of proportionality applies, in particular, to human rights and fundamental freedoms, while in the field of economic, social and cultural rights, account must be taken of Article 41 (1) of the Charter, which opens wide scope for legislators to choose various solutions. In view of Article 41 (1) The Charter does not have to be a legal regulation in the strict relationship of proportionality to the objective pursued by regulation, i.e. it does not have to be necessary in a democratic society, such as other rights which can be invoked directly on the basis of the Charter. The test of constitutionality in this sense will be passed by such legal regulation as can be established to pursue a legitimate objective and in such a way as to do so in a way that can be seen as a reasonable means to achieve it, even if it may not be the best, most appropriate, most effective or wisest [the find sp. zn. The appellant forgoes that fact and the nature of the right to engage in business in relation to Article 41 (1) of the Charter.
62. In assessing the conformity of the contested legislation with the right to do business, which is the nature of economic law, the Constitutional Court therefore acts in a similar manner to those of social rights which have been examined in the present case by the so-called "reasonable test '[cf. In its first two steps, it defines the substance and meaning of economic or social law, namely its essential content, and subsequently assesses whether the contested legislation does not affect the very existence of economic or social law or the actual realisation of its essential content. If the Constitutional Court concludes here that the contested legislation affects the very existence of one of those rights or the actual realisation of its essential content, it shall assess the admissibility of the intervention in the proportionality test, failing to meet its criteria, the Constitutional Court finds that there is a lack of compliance with the constitutional order. However, the appellant does not raise any objections to the fact that the contested legislation would have a suffocating effect, or that it would affect the essential content of the right to do business, and merely argues that the State did not comply with its constitutional obligation under Article 26 (3) of the Charter. Thus, the Constitutional Court merely refers, in the next instance, to the third step of the proportionality test under which the contested laws fulfil the condition of proportionality, and it is therefore not necessary to repeat the argument.
63. Finally, the Constitutional Court notes that the examination of the constitutionality of the contested laws and not the assessment of hypothetical considerations on other (in the appellant's view) legislation was the subject of the procedure.
Conclusion
64. For all the reasons set out above, the Constitutional Court concluded that the proposal was not justified and therefore, pursuant to Article 70 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, it decided as stated in the operative part. The fate of the proposal is also shared by the procedural proposal for its prior discussion and the Constitutional Court did not decide on it by a separate statement.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v. r.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No 29 / 2021 Coll., on the application for annulment of Act No. 209 / 2020 Coll., on certain measures to mitigate the effects of the Coronavirus SARS CoV-2 epidemic on tenants of residential spaces, on the beneficiaries of the loan provided by the State Housing Development Fund and on the provision of services related to the use of apartments and non-residential spaces in the house with apartments, and Act No. 210 / 2020 Coll., on certain measures to mitigate the effects of the Coronavirus epidemic SARS CoV-2 on the lease of premises serving business |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 01.02.2021 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0