The Constitutional Court found No 334 / 2016 Coll.
The Constitutional Court's finding of 23 August 2016, sp. zn.
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
17.10.2016
334
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
On 23 August 2016, the Constitutional Court decided under sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 16 / 15 in plenary composed of the President of the Court of Paul Rychetský and Judges Louis David, Jaroslav Fenyk, Josef Fiala (Judge Rapporteur), Jan Filip, Tomáš Lichovnik, Vladimir Sládek, Radovan Suchanek, Kateřina Šimáčková, Vojtěho Šimíček, Milady Tomková, David Uhlíř and Jiří Zemánek on the proposal of the District Court in Břeclav on the abolition of § 376 paragraph 1 of Act No. 292 / 2013 Coll., on special court proceedings, with the participation of the Chamber of Deputies and Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic,
as follows:
Paragraph 376 (1) of Act No. 292 / 2013 Coll., on special legal proceedings concerning the procedure for determining whether or not marriage is there, is hereby repealed.
Reasons
Recital of the proposal
1. The applicant - Breclav District Court ("District Court") - requested, by reference to Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic ("the Constitution") and Article 64 (3) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, ("the Law on the Constitutional Court"), that the Constitutional Court issue a finding repealing Article 376 (1) of Act No. 292 / 2013 Coll., on special legal proceedings ("the Constitutional Court").
2. In its application, the District Court stated that "by order of 26 November 2014 No 23 Nc 1593 / 2014-13, it initiated a procedure for determining whether or not a marriage is concluded between I. č. and A. č., p. P.," because of the suspicion that the marriage did not arise because, in the context of the marriage ceremony, such formalities had not been fulfilled in accordance with the provisions of § 677 (1) of Act No 89 / 2012 Coll., Civil Code, (hereinafter referred to as "the Circular") for the application of which the marriage was not necessarily required; in the present case, it could be a case where one of the fiancé suffered from a mental disorder which prevented him from creating his own will, and the will to marry him was completely absent. In its submission of 5 January 2015, the Municipality of Příška informed the Commission that Mr Č. had died. In the present situation, the court should, in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 376 (1) W, suspend proceedings. However, the appellant is based on the very substance of the present case, which is to determine whether or not there is a marriage, when the conceptual feature of a so-called apparent marriage or non-existent marriage (note that "non-existent marriage") is the fact that the marriage does not arise at all; such a marriage cannot give rise to the status and legal consequences associated with it, so there is no question of marriage at all. Therefore, the death of a party could not, under substantive law, result in the termination of a legal relationship if, in the present case, it was merely an apparent marriage, since that legal relationship did not even arise. According to the appellant, the termination of the proceedings on account of the loss of eligibility of one of the spouses, after the initiation of the proceedings, could thus lead to a de facto healing of only the alleged and apparent marriage.
3. The District Court also pointed out that marriage is a key farm (note correctly to be a "status") ratio and any uncertainty is undesirable; therefore, the apparent marriage may constitute a breach of public order and good manners, so there is a public interest in whether or not marriage is concluded is decided for sure. The loss of eligibility to be a party to the proceedings (death) of one of the spouses after the initiation of the procedure for determining whether or not a marriage which has been initiated ex officio should therefore not prevent proceedings. To this end, the Court supplemented the possible consequences in the level of property law with an impact on the succession proceedings in accordance with the legal succession classes and found Article 11 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
4. In conclusion, the appellant expressed the idea that "if the legislature failed to allow the court to continue the proceedings on whether or not a marriage which has been initiated on an official basis is contrary to the constitutional order and the public interest, since the termination of the procedure on account of the loss of the party's capacity would result in the recovery of the marital status, where the court merely declares that the marriage did not arise '.
Dedication of the contested provision and its systematic classification
5. Paragraph 376 (1) of the Rules of Procedure, which the appellant seeks to abolish, reads: "If a party loses his capacity to be a party after the opening of proceedings, the court shall terminate the proceedings."
6. This provision is included in Part Two of the Act entitled "Special section" of Title Five "Procedure in matters of family law" of the first "Procedure in matters of matrimonial and partnership" subsection of the second "Procedure in matrimonial matters," i.e. in the set of provisions § 371 to 398. The Law on special court proceedings regulates three proceedings in the matrimonial statutes, namely:
- determining whether or not there is a marriage (apparent marriage),
- the nullity of marriage,
- for divorce.
The subsection in question is further structured through group headings to general provisions (§ 371-372), the procedure for determining whether the marriage is there or not, and the nullity of the marriage (§ 373- 382) and the proceedings for divorce (§ 383- 398).
7. It follows from the systematic classification of the contested provision that it is directly applicable in two of the three matrimonial acts, i.e. in the procedure for determining whether the marriage is there or not (apparent marriage) and in the proceedings for annulment of the marriage (ref., in the third case, i.e. in the divorce proceedings, the same consequence is the loss of eligibility of a participant after the initiation of the proceedings to be adjusted separately in Article 386 (c)).
Observations of participants
8. The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, in its observations, briefly described the content of the proposal and then addressed the drafting of the legislative process with the conclusion that the law was passed by the necessary majority of Members of the Chamber of Deputies, signed by the relevant constitutional officials (except for the signature of the President of the Chamber of Deputies because of the dissolution of this Chamber) and was duly declared. It recalled that the contested provision was approved in the version submitted by the Government (only renumbering as a result of the insertion of new paragraphs) and the explanatory memorandum stated that the draft law was in full compliance with the Constitution, the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and the international treaties under Article 10 of the Constitution. In view of this situation, it expressed its view that the legislature acted in the belief that the law adopted was in accordance with the Constitution and our rule of law, and that it was up to the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of the contested provision in the context of the proposal by the District Court and to give its decision.
9. The Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic first summarised the content of the proposal and its justification. He then expressed his views on the relevant parts of the legislative process and stated that it had acted within the limits of the Constitution established competence and in a constitutional manner. In addition, he added that the explanatory memorandum states that the proposed legislation is based on existing legislation and pointed out that, in the current legal situation, the court will always stop proceedings for the absence of marriage, at the same time recommending a solution for the future, which could be completed even after the death of one of the spouses. In addition, the Senate added that it could not be overlooked that, while the possibility of a marriage's legal declaration in some cases was invalid, even though the husband's death had disappeared, the legislator did not allow that possibility in the case of a non-existent marriage. Finally, the Senate recalled that the loss of ability to be a party to the proceedings as a result of the termination of the proceedings was imposed on the legislator by analogy in the case of divorce proceedings. He left the decision on the application to the District Court at the Constitutional Court.
10. The Government and the Ombudsman have informed the Constitutional Court that they will not exercise their right to intervene.
Findings from the District Court's file
11. On 21 November 2014, the Constitutional Court found that, at its address (to the hands of JUDr. Josef Mužík, President of the Court), an initiative was sent to initiate proceedings by a self-judge of the same court (Mgr. Daniela Klobásová), which was annexed to the judgment on the limitation of incapacity I. No., the judge stated that, according to the expert opinion of psychiatry appointed as a result of his mental illness, he was unable to understand the consequences of the conclusion of the marriage, but only 5 days before the hearing on the limitation of incapacity (after the examination and examination) he concluded on 25 October 2014 a marriage with A. No. The judgment of the District Court of 6 November 2014, No 12 Nc 118 / 2012-86, 12 P and Nc 287 / 2012, was limited in its own right to the effect that it was not capable of holding the hearing in the operative part of the judgment cited, inter alia, that it was not competent to marry (operative part I), and the municipality of Příška (operative part II) was appointed guardian. Since the court declared the provisional enforceability of these two statements, both statements became enforceable on 14 November 2014. The legal power of the judgment is not indicated in its original form. On 26 November 2014, the District Court issued order No 23 Nc 1593 / 2014-13, which initiated the procedure for determining whether or not there was a marriage, the order became final on 19 December 2014. On 26 January 2015, the Municipal Office in Harbours issued a death certificate in the name of I. Č. with probable date of death on 1 January 2015. By order of 3 July 2015 No 23 Nc 1593 / 2014-29, the District Court of the District Court of Procedure, pursuant to § 109 (1) (c) of Law No. 99 / 1963 Coll., Civil Code, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "o.s. '), suspended and lodged an application before the Constitutional Court.
Evaluation of the legislative process
12. The Constitutional Court is obliged - pursuant to § 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll. - to first consider whether the law, the inconstitutionality of which the provision is contested, was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution established competence and the constitutional procedure.
13. The appellant seeks annulment of the provisions of Paragraph 376 (1) W From the electronic library of Parliament of the Czech Republic, the Constitutional Court found that the bill was submitted to the Chamber of Deputies as a government proposal on 5 March 2013 and sent to Members as a print 931 / 0. The proposal was adopted at the 57th session of the Chamber of Deputies on 8 August 2013 by Resolution 1747, when of the 129 Members present there were 65 for, 20 against, 44 abstentions. The Chamber of Deputies passed the Senate Bill as Press 174 / 0, which discussed the proposal on 12 September 2013 and approved the proposal when the 56 senators present were 43 in favour and 2 against. On 17 September 2013, the law was delivered to the President of the Republic for signature, who signed it on the same day. The Act was published under No 292 / 2013 Coll. in the amount 112 / 2013 by the Collection of Laws, which was circulated on 27 September 2013.
14. The Constitutional Court therefore found, within the meaning of Article 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., that Act No. 292 / 2013 Coll., on Special Proceedings, was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down by Parliament's legislative competence and in a constitutional manner.
Assessment of admissibility of the proposal
15. The Constitutional Court first referred to the question whether the district court is entitled to file an application for annulment of the contested provision. Article 95 (2) defines the active legitimacy of the court to submit an application for annulment of the law or its provisions. The Constitution so that, if the Court concludes that the law to be applied in the resolution of the case is contrary to the constitutional order, it shall bring the matter before the Constitutional Court. Paragraph 64 (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court states that the application for annulment of the law or its individual provisions is also entitled to be lodged by the court in the context of its decision-making activities pursuant to Article 95 (2) of the Constitution.
16. In the present case, i.e. in the procedure for determining whether there is or is no marriage (see the findings made by the Constitutional Court in the case-law of the District Court), the District Court initiated the proceedings under Paragraph 13 (1) (b) under which the proceedings are initiated on its own motion, unless it is provided by law that the proceedings may be initiated only on application; the court shall initiate the proceedings without delay after it has become aware of the facts relevant to the conduct of the proceedings under this Act (see above). The parties to such proceedings are in accordance with § 375 W.s. In the course of the proceedings, a party to the I.No. died, thus creating scope for the application of the provisions of § 376 W.V and the court has an obligation to stop the proceedings.
17. On the basis of these findings, the Constitutional Court concluded that the contested provision is a provision of the law to be applied in the resolution of the case, i.e. that the district court is actively authorised to file an application for its annulment pursuant to Article 95 (2) of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 64 (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court.
18. In the context of the disappearance of the Constitutional Court Judge Vladimir Krórek, the case in question (assigned to that Judge by the Rapporteur and not finished on 16 December 2015) was assigned to the new Judge-Rapporteur, Joseph Fial, on the basis of the provisions of Paragraph 12 (17) (transitional provisions) of the schedule of proceedings of the Constitutional Court in full effect from 18.12.2015 (No Org. 66 / 15); The Constitutional Court has informed the appellant of this change.
Assessment of the reasons for the proposal
19. The contents of the application and the court file clearly show the subject matter of the proceedings brought by the district court: an assessment of whether the legal conditions for marriage have been fulfilled. In this context, it should be recalled that marriage is a legal relationship that is legal in nature, which means that it is already linked to its creation, duration and demise, often existentially, to a number of other significant legal relationships [e.g. common property rights, including joint ownership, and obligations, determination of paternity, skirt in the event of death (inheritance or transfer of other property rights), etc.]. Therefore, the requirement to obtain legal certainty is predetermined by the legal preconditions of marriage as well as the instruments enabling "control" to be fulfilled.
20. The substantive regulation of statutory issues (also personal and property consequences) associated with the formation of marriage is governed by Act No. 89 / 2012 Coll., Civil Code. First of all, it follows from the relevant provisions that the legal basis for marriage is the marriage (§ 656), with the "proper 'origin of marriage requiring the fulfilment of the personal preconditions, formalities for marriage declarations and procedural formalities. They include the ability of a natural person to marry (since the conclusion of a marriage has significant legal consequences - see also the subject under analysis, paragraph 19), which each natural person has, unless prevented from doing so by a legal obstacle under § 672 to 676 (cf. § 671 under the Code). The relevant legal obstacles include minors and incapacity (§ 672), limited incapacity in this area (§ 673), the existence of another marriage, registered partnership or similar union concluded abroad (§ 674), close relationship with kin (§ 675), or another" dependent' relationship - custody, foster and trust (§ 676). The requirements of the marriage declaration include sufficient autonomy of the fiancé, their personal declaration, which must be free and complete (Section 656 (1) of the Code), etc. Any defects in the marriage process may have different consequences; Some are not sanctioned at all, others may lead to so-called nullity of marriage, others cause marriage not to occur at all. The Code in the provisions of § 677- 686 regulates the two consequences of defects occurring in the conclusion of a marriage, namely marriage apparent (§ 677- 679) and nullity of marriage (§ 680- 686). An apparent marriage (non-matrimonium) shall be deemed to be such if, at least one of the persons who intended to marry, it is not necessary to insist unreservedly in the speech of the will to marry or in the marriage ceremony, or in connection with it, on the fulfilment of such formalities, for the marriage to be created (i.e. the result of very fundamental defects). According to Article 678 of the Code, the court may determine that marriage is not, even on its own motion, of a declaratory nature. The existence of one of the legal obstacles creates the possibility of declaring marriage invalid by a constitutional judgment (Matrimonium nullum, i.e. a situation where a marriage concluded despite a legal obstacle is considered valid until it is declared invalid - Section 681 of the Code). An application for annulment of a marriage may be made by any person having a legal interest in it, unless the marriage prevented a restriction of limited incapacity (§ 680 i. f.). A special case constitutes an arrangement under Section 684 of the Code, according to which marriage may be declared invalid only on the proposal of the spouse in the event of defects in his will, including two cases of relevant error.
21. It is already contained in the substantive legislation itself, for certain situations, the manifestations of a relatively intense public interest in identifying disorders in the process of marriage (cf. paragraph 19 i. f.). They are expressed in terms of the Court's independence even without the procedural activity of the persons concerned. In relation to the substantive legislation in the Act, procedural regulation was adopted and was included in the Act on Special Judicial Procedures.
22. There is no doubt that civil court proceedings are determined by a number of basic procedural principles, and its initiation and further conduct depend on the conditions of the procedure.
23. One of the fundamental procedural principles - the principle of disposition - is projected into the postulate that civil proceedings can only be initiated on a proposal (§ 79 o. s. s.). The modification of the disposing principle of the principle of official character (which is a statement of public interest) is caused by the specific nature of certain proceedings in which the public interest in the adjustment of the circumstances of the participants (without taking into account their individual interests), e.g. by establishing the possibility of initiating an ex offo procedure, is of an official nature, i.e. even without proposal. The expression of this public interest is the construction of Paragraph 13 (1) W, which expresses the rule that proceedings under this law are also initiated on its own motion, unless it is provided by law that proceedings may be initiated only on proposal. Similarly, the principle of formal application will apply in the next stages of the procedure, e.g. by modifying the effects of the procedural actions of the participants, the possibility of decisions of ultra petitum etc. (other typical effects of the public interest may be left to the party, e.g. the principle of investigation):
(a) Paragraph 15 WW: If the appellant removes the application for the initiation of proceedings, the court may decide to render the withdrawal ineffective if the conditions for the initiation of proceedings are fulfilled, even on its own motion.
(b) Paragraph 26 (c): The Court of First Instance may exceed the pleas of the parties and may charge something other than that which they seek if the proceedings could be initiated on its own motion.
(c) Paragraph 28 (2) (b): If the procedure could be initiated on its own motion, the Court of Appeal is not bound by the limit in which the appellant seeks review of the decision. (NB: This provision does not apply in the proceedings for annulment of a marriage for the reasons set out in § 684 of the Code - see § 374 (2) i.
(d) § 29 WW: In authorising the recovery or annulment of the contested decision on the basis of an action for confusion, the court shall not be bound by the limits in which the party seeks a review of the decision, if it was possible to initiate proceedings of its own motion.
(e) Paragraph 30 (2) W: The Court of First Instance is not bound by the scope of the appeals in cases in which proceedings may be initiated on its own motion.
(f) § 379 WW.: If the appellant fails to arrive at the hearing without a proper and timely apology, the court (cf. proceedings for determining whether or not the marriage is there and for the annulment of the marriage) shall stop, unless there are grounds for initiating the proceedings of its own motion.
24. The civil procedure conditions are a set of elements - assumptions under which civil proceedings can be initiated and conducted; they include the existence of an eligible party. The loss of ability to be a participant is generally an obstacle to the procedure, one which creates a scope for assessing whether the procedure can be continued (§ 107 (1) o. p. o. s.), the result of which depends on the nature of the case. If the nature of the case does not permit the proceeding to be continued, the proceedings shall be terminated (§ 107 (5) o. p. o.); where the nature of the case makes it possible to proceed with the proceedings, then the procedural successor (differentiated according to whether the party concerned was a natural person - § 107 (2) o. s. or a legal person - § 107 (3) o. s.) takes the place of the earlier party. For a natural person, this loss of eligibility is a participant as a result of his death. While the structure enshrined in Paragraph 107 (1) CS takes into account the "nature 'of the case (which makes it possible to assess the substantive nature of the subject-matter of the proceedings, i.e. to assess whether the rights and obligations in the proceedings have been transferred or could be transferred under the substantive right to legal successor), the provision of § 376 (1) W is a lex specialis and obliges the court to suspend the proceedings for the determination of the absence and invalidity of the marriage, unless the modification of the derogation (§ 376 (2) and (3) W) of the procedure for the declaration of marriage for annulment initiated on the proposal of the spouse pursuant to Article 374 (1) (i.e. the expression of the marriage was made under the pressure resulting from the use of violence or the threat of violence or was made as a mistake of the identity of the spouse or the nature of the marriage). The derogation is also a substantive provision of § 685 of the Code allowing marriage to be declared invalid through a relevant legal barrier (bigamy, kinship), even if it has already expired (i.e. including the death of one of the spouses).
25. The appellant's argument to justify the annulment of the contested provision is based on the view that the termination of proceedings on grounds of loss of eligibility could lead to a de facto recovery of only alleged or apparent marriage, which could result in consequences in a level of property law having an impact on the succession proceedings under the legal succession groups (cf. on the acquisition of property by inheritance in a legal sequence). The Constitutional Court recalls that in this type of procedure it is bound only by the petition, which allows it to assess any other constitutional aspects of the contested provision.
26. Following an analysis of the general bases, the Constitutional Court concluded that the existence of a public interest in adjusting the circumstances of the parties would not only manifest itself when the relevant proceedings were initiated but also affect its course (see, for example, the effects of the principle of inquiry in determining the facts). In this context, consideration should be given to the extent to which the need to determine the legal status of the participants is affected by the introduction of relevant legal facts after the initiation of the relevant procedure. One of these legal facts is the loss of the ability of one of the parties concerned to participate, typically as a result of the death of a natural person. An absolute obligation on the court to stop proceedings in such a case could lead to a loss of the possibility of establishing the legal status of the parties concerned.
27. The Constitutional Court shall respect the need for legal certainty in the assessment of the existence and existence of a marriage where proceedings may have been opened on an official basis and shall consider that such a need shall continue even if, after the initiation of proceedings, one of the parties loses his capacity to be a party to proceedings. The contested provision precludes the full implementation of such a need, it is a provision in its effects affecting the implementation of the specific fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. The legal nature of the marriage and the broad range of legal relations associated with it (paragraph 19) leads the Constitutional Court to conclude that the application of the provisions of Paragraph 376 (1) (b) is capable of infringing the fundamental right of the persons concerned to protect against unauthorised interference in private and family life (Article 10 (2) of the Charter, or Article 32 of the Charter), the fundamental right of ownership of property and property to inherit (Article 11 (1) of the Charter) and the fundamental right of judicial protection (Article 36 (1) of the Charter), and therefore the contested provision is contradictory to the constitutional order (Article 1 (1) of the Constitution).
28. The fundamental right to the protection of private and family life is closely linked to the determination of the legal status of a natural person, either as persons living in a marriage or living outside a marriage. A number of legal institutes calculate directly with the legal status of a "spouse," their application outside that legal relationship being excluded or restricted. For example, the common assets of the spouses, the definition of a group of persons close to the family, or members of the employee's family, or persons entitled to sickness insurance, the granting of consent to the provision of medical services, the running of the limitation period, the classification of the family establishment, the determination of the heirs, the regime of joint lease of the apartment and the exchange, joint membership of the housing cooperative, the impossibility of establishing and having a basic employment relationship, the application of the presumption of paternity, etc. In a demonstration list of legal institutes there are typically statutory institutes which determine the primary legal status of a person (not only marriage, but also paternity, etc.) and whose defects in specific legal relationships may lead to a breach of the right to privacy and family protection guaranteed in Article 10 (2), possibly Article 32 of the Charter, including property institutions which are intended to ensure the protection of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 11 (1) of the Charter (joint ownership of the property, the classification of persons in the succession classes and the eligibility of the acquisition for death, etc.). The legal impossibility to establish the status of a natural person and its subsequent application in the relevant legal relations directly affects both fundamental rights, both directly to spouses and, respectively, to persons in a minor marriage and to third parties (e.g. relatives). The need to determine this legal status shall continue after the death of the natural person.
29. The determination of the legal status of the deceased natural person in material legal relations resulting from the implementation of the abovementioned institutes depends on sufficient "space" to ensure fair protection of the subjective rights and legitimate interests of the participants (§ 1 o. s.), including in the procedures provided for in W. (§ 1 (2) W.). The lack of procedural guarantees for the exercise of rights constitutes a direct breach of the fundamental right of judicial protection guaranteed by Article 36 (1) of the Charter. It is precisely such an infringement found by the Constitutional Court in the contested provision of Paragraph 376 (1) W, which does not allow the natural person to determine, after the death of the natural person, whether or not the marriage concluded by that person has been created (contrary to some cases, "mere" invalidity of the marriage), thereby being limited, or completely excluded from the fair protection of subsequent subjective rights, including the subjective rights of third parties.
Formation of the operative statement
30. For the reasons set out above, the Constitutional Court granted the application and annulled the provisions of Paragraph 376 (1) of the Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., to the extent stated in the operative part, on the date of the publication of this finding in the Collection of Laws. It did so after it concluded that, in view of the cogent nature of the contested provision, its unconstitutionality could not be removed either by constitutional interpretation or by interpretation. He therefore used the so-called scope statement to determine the extent to which the contested provisions cannot be applied in proceedings concerning so-called apparent marriage. Thus, from the date of the publication of this finding, the repealed provision of Paragraph 376 (1) (b) may be applied to the extent stated, without the need to abolish the whole of it and impose an obligation on the legislator to restate the question. At the same time, the Constitutional Court is aware that this procedure, which respects the requirement to minimise intervention on the one hand and the smooth application of the contested provision on the other hand, is also not without difficulty from the point of view of the legislative technique, although the newly defined content of that provision is addressed in particular by the judicial authority. Act No. 222 / 2016 Coll., on the Collection of Laws and International Treaties and on the drafting of laws published in the Collection of Laws and International Treaties (Act on the Collection of Laws and International Treaties), in § 13 (1), although it has newly created a scope for the legislative and technical regulation of the provision in question arising from this finding, the Act will take effect on 1 January 2020. Therefore, the Constitutional Court expects the legislature to respond to the material assumptions of the legislature (closer to sub-paragraphs 19 to 29), whose status is indicated by the case pending by the District Court, within the scope of this finding, and in this respect, to expressly specify the content of such a negative extension of the repealed provision and to align the provisions contained in the substantive rules.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v. r.
In accordance with Article 14 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, the Judges Vladimir Sládeček and Radovan Sukánek took a different position.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found no. 334 / 2016 Coll., on the application for annulment of § 376 paragraph 1 of Act No 292 / 2013 Coll., on special legal proceedings |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 17.10.2016 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0