The Constitutional Court found No. 42 / 2013 Coll.
The Constitutional Court's finding of 9 January 2013, sp. zn.
Valid
Contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
„Čl. XXIV
VII.
VIIa/ Shrnutí obsahových změn, jež napadená ustanovení vyvolávají
VIIb/ Posouzení ústavněprávních námitek obsažených v návrhu
VIIba/ Námitka nepřípustné retroaktivity a nezákonného zásahu státní moci do již jednou nabytých práv
VIIbb/ Porušení zásady legitimního očekávání
VIIbc/ Námitka nepřípustné diskriminace
42
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
On 9 January 2013, the Constitutional Court decided under Sp. Pl. ÚS 31 / 09 in plenary, composed of the President of the Court of Paul Rychetský and Judges Stanislav Balík, Vlasta Formánková, Pavel Holländer, Ivana Janů, Vladimir Krářík, Jiří Muchy, Jan Musil (Judge of the Rapporteur), Jiří Nykodemí, Miloslav Excellent and Michaela Židlická on the proposal of the Regional Court in Brno to abolish the provisions of Article XXIV (4) and (5) of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., on the stabilisation of public budgets, with the participation in Brno, 2.
as follows:
Motion denied.
Reasons
Recital of the proposal
1. In the application submitted to the Constitutional Court on 12 October 2009, the Regional Court in Brno, pursuant to Article 64 (3) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, ("the Law on the Constitutional Court ') and under Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, proposed the repeal of the provisions of Article XXIV points 4 and 5 of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., on the stabilisation of public budgets. For the Regional Court in Brno, the single judge of the Regional Court, JUDr. Jarmila Děsková, submitted the application.
2. The present application was lodged in connection with the proceedings brought before the Regional Court in Brno under point 57 Ca 14 / 2009 on the administrative action of the applicant Mgr. L. Z. ("the applicant ') against the defendant Regional Office of the South Moravian Region, the Department of Social Affairs. The action is contested by the decision of the Regional Office of 1 December 2008 No. JMK 155130 / 2008, sp. zn. S-JMK 51819 / 2008 / OSV-Pr, which rejected the applicant's appeal against the decision of the Labour Office of the Brno City, the Department of State Social Support, of 17 April 2008 No. 1388 / 8 / BME / 3, which granted the benefit of State social assistance - parental allowance of CZK 7 600 per month from 1 January 2008.
3. The applicant contested the decision of the defendant of the Regional Office of 1 December 2008 in the context of a situation in which, as the mother of the minor daughter of H.S., a parental contribution was awarded in accordance with § 30 (1) (b) and (d) of Act No. 117 / 1995 Coll., on State Social Aid, as amended. The assessment of this entitlement to the parental contribution according to the amended version of Act No. 117 / 1995 Coll. is a consequence of Article XXIV (4) and (5) of Law No. 261 / 2007.
4. New arrangements for entitlement to the parental allowance and its amount pursuant to Article XXIV points 4 and 5 of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. in the applicant's view, in relation to the recipients of the parental contribution to children already born, it is contrary to the constitutional rights and freedoms guaranteed. The new legislation contains elements of unacceptable retroactivity, is a breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty and is discriminatory.
5. The application of the Regional Court cites the applicant's objections, which the Regional Court considers to be logical and which are consistent with both their content and their wording. Therefore, the Regional Court summarises in the proposal the applicant's constitutionally relevant arguments, which it also takes over in its proposal.
6. In particular, the appellant points out the retroactivity of the new legislation, which he sees as having had a major impact on the way in which the benefit was acquired as well. In fact, the new version of the Act introduces schemes for the different length of the payment of the parental allowance and, depending on the length, also different amounts of the parental allowance, both linked to the existence of entitlement to maternity aid. Thus, the amendments to the Act directly affect the conditions for a parent's entitlement to a parental contribution, which can be regarded as an unlawful interference of state authority in one of the rights acquired [the appellant refers to the finding of the Constitutional Court sp. zn.
7. In breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, it is alleged that it is illogical and unsystemic to establish a benefit of state social assistance for sickness insurance, but is voluntary. Until the amendment to the Act had been effective, there was no such connection and the applicant could not reasonably expect such interconnection to take place in the future and to apply retroactively to existing relationships and acquired rights. In the view of the appellant, such a procedure is contrary to the conclusions of the Constitutional Court's finding, sp. v. IV.
8. According to the appellant, the new legislation is also discriminatory. Nor does the explanatory memorandum to the Law on the stabilisation of public budgets state why parents of children who are entitled to a parental contribution on 1 January 2008 are divided into unequal groups: While two of the three groups of parents are determined by a fixed amount, the third group is subject to the provisions of Act No 117 / 1995 Coll. A new assessment of the entitlement to a parental allowance under criteria other than those which existed at the time of the birth of the child is discriminatory because the new conditions introduced by the amended version of the Act result in a financial loss of the entitled parent.
Assessment of admissibility of the proposal
9. The Constitutional Court notes that the application was submitted by an authorised body in accordance with § 64 (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court and that it is admissible (§ 66 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll.). The proposal meets the formal requirements of the motion to repeal the law.
Recital of the observations of the parties and of the public authorities addressed
10. The Constitutional Court requested, within the meaning of Paragraph 69 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, a statement on the application from the two chambers of Parliament of the Czech Republic as parties to the proceedings and the statement of the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs.
11. The Chamber of Deputies signed by its President, Miroslava Nemca, states that the draft law on the stabilisation of public budgets was ordered by the Chamber of Deputies to discuss the Social Policy Committee, the Health Committee and the Budget Committee, in which the Social Policy Committee and the Committee of Budgets adopted a resolution recommending the rejection of the bill. After a detailed debate, a number of amendments were adopted to the draft law in the second debate, but they did not concern the contested provision. The bill, as amended by the amendments adopted, was approved by the Chamber of Deputies on 21.8.2007 by the number of votes for 101, against 99 of the 200 Members present. Finally, the President of the Chamber of Deputies expressed the belief that the Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., which contains the contested provisions, was in line with the Constitution of the Czech Republic.
12. In his observations, the President of the Senate Milan Štěch stressed that these are transitional provisions in which the procedure concerning the provision of the parental contribution following the amendment of the Act on State Social Support implemented by Act No 261 / 2007 Coll. was modified by the introduction of the so-called three-speed parental contribution.
13. The President of the Senate also referred to the content of the observations sent to the Constitutional Court in connection with the three proposals of a group of Members and Senators against other transitional provisions of the law which the Constitutional Court dealt with shortly after its adoption (the proceedings conducted by the Constitutional Court under the sp. zl. Since this is a law to which the Senate has already spoken, it refers to the Senate's observations on the proceedings under the sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 24 / 07 and does not consider it necessary to add anything to it, since the Senate adopted a resolution at the Senate meeting in which it expressed its willingness not to deal with the draft law.
14. Finally, the President of the Senate also referred to the conclusions of the Constitutional Court's finding, sp. zn. He recalled that, in connection with the objection of failure to comply with the "legitimate expectation ', the Constitutional Court considered that its application in the field of social rights was" not entirely appropriate'. In the context of the proposal, the President of the Senate considered it appropriate to point out the differences in views that arise in the decision-making practice of the courts regarding changes in the provision of parental contributions. For example, the serious argument of alleged unconstitutional retroactivity was addressed in the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court No 3 Ads 111 / 2010-44 in connection with the appeal complaint concerning the granting of parental contributions under the legislation of Act No 261 / 2007 Coll. In the judgment cited, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the case at issue was an improper retroactivity and the legislation in question fully complied with the theoretical and caselaw requirements in this respect.
15. The Constitutional Court also received the opinion of the Minister for Labour and Social Affairs, Dr Ing. Jaromír Drábka, who, above all, contradicts the intervener's objections to changes in the conditions for entitlement to the benefit and stresses that changes are only made in the ways of drawing up the parental allowance and determining its amount. The introduction of the "multi-speed structure 'of the dose in the three measurements set out in fixed amounts (increased, basic and reduced) allows parents to choose the optimal option for it, taking into account specific circumstances.
16. As regards the contested transitional provisions of Act No 261 / 2007 Coll. the Minister stated that they are necessary not only for the uniform regulation of the issue in question, but also for the maintenance of the principle of equality between parents receiving a parental contribution. Since the new legislation abolishes the existing legislation on parental leave and parents who received parental leave under the former legislation cannot choose the way in which the right to parental leave is exercised under the new legislation if the child has already reached an age with which the law no longer links the choice of entitlement, it was necessary to establish, in these cases, a rule determining the level of parental leave in order to maintain equality between parents receiving parental leave, assessed under different legal regimes.
17. In its observations, the Minister does not agree with the appellant's claim that the amendments introduced by Law 261 / 2007 Coll. directly affected the conditions for entitlement to the parental allowance, since this benefit was and is linked to the only legal fact that is child care. A parent is entitled to this benefit regardless of whether he has previously received sickness insurance benefits related to maternity or childbirth. In addition to the time limit for a full-time and full-time care of a child's parent, the determining criterion for receiving a parental allowance is the whole calendar month. The concept of entitlement to the parental allowance and the determination of its amount are thus based on an indirectly proportional relationship between the amount of the parental allowance and the time of its collection.
18. The above observations by the President of the Chamber of Deputies, the President of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs were sent to the appellant for a possible reply. The Regional Court in Brno, by letter dated 4 January 2013, stated that it persists in its reasoning contained in the application.
Abandonment of oral proceedings
19. Following the recap of the proceedings, the Constitutional Court concluded that there was no need for oral hearing in the case, as it would not have brought any further, or better and clearer clarification of the case than it had in the written proceedings of the appellant and the parties. Having regard to the wording of Paragraph 44 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No 404 / 2012 Coll., effective as of 1 January 2013, the Constitutional Court decided without holding an oral hearing. In the proceedings initiated before the entry into force of this amendment, the Constitutional Court will continue, as regards procedural procedures, according to the new rules, the Constitutional Court alerted all parties to the proceedings and the general public in its Notice of 18 December 2012, published under No 469 / 2012 Coll. For the sake of completeness, the Constitutional Court also adds that it did not carry out the taking of evidence in the proceedings and only came out of the contents of the Regional Court file in Brno, sp. zn. 57 Ca 14 / 2009 and from the written observations of the applicant and the parties.
Constitutional conformity of the legislative process
20. The legislative process of the adoption of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. was found by the Constitutional Court to be constitutional in conformity with the decision of 31 January 2008 sp. zn.
Derogation of the contested provisions
21. The contested provisions of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. read:
Transitional provisions
4. Parental allowance provided under special rules, as effective until the date of entry into force of this Act, shall be valid from 1 January 2008.
(a) in a basic measure of up to 3 years of age of the child, if the youngest child in the family entitled to a parental allowance has reached 21 months of age before 1 January 2008 and, after reaching 3 years of age of that child, the parental allowance falls at a reduced rate of up to 4 years of age of the child;
(b) at a reduced rate of up to 4 years of age of the child, if the youngest child in the family entitled to a parental allowance after 31 December 2007 was 3 years of age before 1 January 2008.
5. The entitlement to the parental allowance referred to in Article XXIII shall be decided by the State Social Aid Office on the basis of a request for a parental contribution submitted to that Office on 31 December 2007 under special legislation, as effective by the date of entry into force of this Law. ';
Legal evaluation of the Constitutional Court
22. The proposal is not justified as regards the alleged unconstitutionality of the content of the contested provisions.
23. Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., on the stabilisation of public budgets, which was also amended on 31 December 2007 by Act No. 117 / 1995 Coll., on State Social Support, as amended, was part of the extensive social changes that the legislature pursued to reduce social expenditure, including in the payment of childbirth and parental allowance. These measures, according to the government's explanatory memorandum, were intended to prevent a deepening of public debt and an increase in the deficit of the Czech state budget.
24. The new legislation enshrined in the amended provisions of § 32 (1) of Law No 117 / 1995 Coll. introduces, inter alia, the programme of the so-called multi-speed structure of the drawing of the parental contribution, in the three areas set out in fixed amounts:
- increased area (1.5 times the base area) is CZK 11 400,
- the basic area is 7600 CZK,
- reduced area (half of basic area) is CZK 3,800.
25. The parent may choose:
- faster use of the parental allowance - after monetary assistance in maternity, cash aid or sickness provided in connection with childbirth (all these three benefits are hereinafter referred to as "PPM"), the parental allowance is paid at an increased rate of up to the age of 24 months;
- "classical" drawing on the parental allowance - after the PPM, the parental allowance shall be at the basic rate up to 36 months of the child's age;
- a slower drawing of the parental allowance - after the PPM or since the birth of the child, the parental allowance shall be at the basic rate of up to 18 months of age of the child and at a reduced rate of up to 48 months of age of the child.
26. The choice of the time for receiving the parental allowance and its amount and amount of the PPM always refers to the youngest child in the family. The selected drawing option is unchangeable and cannot be applied retroactively (even if parents take turns in receiving parental allowance). A parent who is not entitled to the PPM shall automatically receive a parental allowance from the birth of a child under a slower drawing scheme. A parent may apply for a faster drawing if the amount of his PPM is at least CZK 380 per calendar day and if he made a decision for a faster drawing of the parental allowance no later than 22 (31) weeks of the child's life. In this case the parental allowance belongs to the increased area (i.e. 11 400 CZK). In other cases, at the age of 18 months, a parent must choose "classical" or slower use of the parental allowance.
27. In the case of disabled children, the new legislation retains the right to a parental allowance of up to 7 years of age in basic education.
28. The new legislation on entitlement to a parental allowance is thus intended to enable a parent who looks after a small child to decide more easily whether and for what period he will receive the parental allowance and also to what extent he will receive the allowance. This is to allow a parent to better reconcile his parental responsibilities and professional role depending on the specific situation in the family.
29. The basic condition for entitlement to a parental allowance is the personal and proper care of the parent of the youngest child in the family. If this condition is met, the right to a parental allowance shall be granted in several variants with the choice of one of them at the choice of the parent.
30. The conditions for entitlement to the parental allowance are laid down in the provisions of § 30 of Act No. 117 / 1995 Coll. and the amount of the parental contribution in § 32 of the same Act.
31. The previous legislation of the parental contribution (before the amendment by Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll.) was different from the current legislation in particular on the following issues:
- a parental allowance has previously been granted to a parent who, for a full calendar month, cares for at least one child under the age of 4, or up to 7 years if the child is severely disabled or long-term disabled;
- if the parents belonged to monetary assistance in maternity care (cash aid or birth-related sick leave), the parental allowance was paid only if it was higher than that amount, at the level of the difference;
- the amount of the parental allowance was derived from the average wage in the non-business sector and was 40% of that wage;
- has not been followed if the parent is employed;
- the child entitled to the benefit may have been placed in a nursery or other pre-school establishment for a limited period;
- only one parental allowance (only one parent) was granted to the family (as currently in force), even if parents care for more children of the age concerned;
- if the child who is entitled to the parental allowance was entitled to a childcare allowance, the parental allowance was half-owned.
32. It should be noted that the conditions for the ways in which the parental contribution is drawn up and for its assessment introduced as a result of the transitional provisions of Act No 261 / 2007 Coll. which are contested by the present proposal lead, for some of their constellations, to a fall in the amount paid for some of the recipients of the parental contribution, compared with the situation before the amendment. This, moreover, is acknowledged by the above mentioned statement of the Minister for Labour and Social Affairs, which states that the amended regulation has "a certain limitation on social security '. However, the Minister considers that" these restrictions do not exceed the intensity which would be contrary to the constitutional arrangements contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as the Charter), let alone that the implementation of the social rights in question would be denied'.
33. The Constitutional Court, in the context of the proposal of the Regional Court in Brno, notes in particular that in accordance with Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., on the stabilisation of public budgets, with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and international treaties, it has already dealt with several aspects of its findings [see the sp. zn.
34. Therefore, in the current proceedings, the Constitutional Court has only dealt with those constitutional issues which the appellant has set out in his application and which also reflect the applicant's objections in previous administrative and judicial proceedings.
VIIba/ Námitka nepřípustné retroaktivity a nezákonného zásahu státní moci do již jednou nabytých práv
35. In the appellant's view, the legislation contained in points 4 and 5 of Article XXIV of the transitional provisions of Law No 261 / 2007 Coll. is an expression of inadmissible retroactivity, since the amendment of the law did not only affect the amount of the benefit but first directly the way in which the claim arose. The retroactive application of the cited law is illustrated by the promoter on the terms and conditions applicable until the date of application of the cited law.
36. On the question of inadmissible retroactivity, the Constitutional Court expressed its views in a number of its decisions [e.g. the finding of 15.5.2012 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 17 / 11 (220 / 2012 Coll.), the finding of 4.2.1997 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 21 / 96 (see above)]. In the latter finding, the Constitutional Court found in general a ban on the genuine retroactivity of legal standards; This ban on genuine retroactivity is one of the fundamental principles defining the category of the rule of law. There are only strictly limited exceptions to this ban on genuine retroactivity. As regards the definition of the difference between the true and false retroactivity, the Constitutional Court stated that "in general, in cases of a time conflict between the old and the new legal standard, false retroactivity applies, i.e. from the effect of the new legal standard, legal relations arising under the repealed legal standard are also governed by the new legal standard. The emergence of legal relations existing before the entry into force of the new legal standard, the legal requirements arising from such relations, as well as the legal acts performed, is governed by the repealed legal standard (the result of the opposite interpretation of the conflict of laws would be genuine retroactivity)."
37. In the case under consideration, the transitional (intertemporal) provisions of the new legislation address the continuity or persistence of the law or legal relations created by the earlier legal standard before the new legal standard becomes effective. These intertemporal provisions, depending on the nature of the regulated relations, leave the acquired rights or legal relations either under the old legislation regime or, on the contrary, apply new legislation to them, usually under sanctions for the cessation of law or legal relationship. The Constitutional Court concluded that, in the present case, retroactivity was incorrect (the Supreme Administrative Court also came to the same conclusion in Case 111 / 2010-44 Ads. The detailed reasoning for this conclusion is the same as that contained in the Constitutional Court's finding, sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 17 / 11 of 15.5.2012 (220 / 2012 Coll.); It can therefore be referred to for brief reasons. In the case under consideration, this false retroactivity does not constitute an unconstitutional intervention in legal certainty and in acquired law.
38. The concept of legitimate expectations can be combined with the question of the admissibility of false retroactivity, since its relevant substance is the property interest which falls according to its content under the protection of Article 11 (1) of the Charter and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms governing the right of everyone to use their property peacefully [Compare the finding of the Constitutional Court of 1 July 2010 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 9 / 07 (N 132 / 58 SbNU 3; 242 / 2010 Coll.) and the finding of 15.5.2012 sp. According to the settled case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the concept of "property 'contained in that Article of the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms must be interpreted as having an autonomous content which is not limited to the ownership of tangible property and does not depend on the formal qualification of national law (judgment of 22 June 2004 in Case No 31443 / 96 - Broniowski v Poland, § 129).
39. In its findings, the Constitutional Court generally underlines the discretion to implement the social rights enshrined in the title of the Fourth Charter, as it is aware that the scope of social rights (including the provision of a parental contribution) is limited by the possibilities of the state budget based on the results of the State's management. It is only within these possibilities that the limits given by the relevant Articles of the Charter governing social rights apply. The assessment of the question of the effectiveness and appropriateness of the rule of law in this field leaves the Constitutional Court to the legislature whose activities the Constitutional Court cannot interfere with except in cases of established inconstitutionality. It is a matter of political substance. The concept of social rights is that they do not have an unconditional nature and can only be sought within the limits of the laws in force (Article 41 of the Charter). This lack of direct enforceability is reflected in the need for their legal definition, which is also a condition for the specific implementation of individual social rights [see the findings of the Constitutional Court sp. v. Pl. ÚS 8 / 07 of 23.3.2010 (N 61 / 56 SbNU 653; 135 / 2010 Coll.), sp. zn. ÚS 2 / 08 of 23.4.2008 (N 73 / 49 SbNU 85; 166 / 2008 Coll.)].
40. Although Article 41 (1) The Charter allows the legislator to establish specific conditions for the implementation of social rights, their legal definition must not be contrary to constitutional principles, in other words, the laws governing them must not completely deny or annul constitutional guaranteed social rights. As in the case of fundamental rights and freedoms directly enforceable under the Charter, even in the case of social rights, the legislator must respect the rule referred to in Article 4 (4) of the Charter under which, when applying the provisions on the limits of fundamental rights and freedoms, their substance and their meaning must be investigated. In the present case, the Constitutional Court concluded that the legislator complied with these principles.
41. The Constitutional Court does not agree with the appellant that the new legislation on the parental contribution constitutes a change in the conditions for entitlement to the benefit. The content of the changes is mainly the use of the parental contribution following its level. The purpose of such adjustment is to participate in the decision-making process of the authorised parent at the choice of the time, manner and amount of the benefit. The contested intertemporal provisions pursue a rationally justifiable objective, namely to establish rules for determining the amount of the parental contribution for those parents who have already received the parental contribution under legislation effective before 1 January 2008 and could not make the choice of entitlement to the parental contribution under the new legislation because of the age of the child with whom the law no longer links the choice of entitlement. The existence of these rules is also in order to respect the principle of equality between parents receiving a parental allowance calculated under different rules.
42. The legislation of the parental allowance before the Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll. did not allow for the coexistence of sickness insurance benefits (monetary assistance in maternity, monetary assistance or sickness provided in connection with childbirth) and parental benefit, from the date of birth of the child. Even the new legislation partially excludes this coexistence of benefits because it allows for the receipt of a parental allowance in addition to monetary assistance in maternity or sickness provided in connection with the birth of only the difference between the parental allowance and the sickness insurance benefits. As in the previously applicable legislation, the legislator's intention is thus to prevent the parallel provision of monetary assistance to the mother and the provision of parental contributions to the child's father. This regulation, even if it means a decline in the previous level, is constitutional; the claim that the benefits of State social assistance are only commensurate if the individual's living situation cannot be addressed by the provision of benefits from the first pillar of the insurance scheme, including sickness insurance, which in principle takes precedence over social security benefits provided for the same reason.
43. The loss of income related to the birth of the child caused by the new arrangements, at least partly, covers the parental contribution as a benefit of state social aid. A parent is entitled to this benefit regardless of whether he has previously received sickness insurance benefits related to maternity or childbirth. The creation of a right to parental benefit has not been and is not now bound by the existence of a right to monetary assistance in maternity, as it also arises in a situation in which a person has not been entitled to monetary assistance in maternity.
44. It cannot be attracted to the appellant's view that some groups of parents are discriminated against by the new rules on parental contributions and the way in which they are drawn. Law 261 / 2007 Coll. laid down the conditions for determining the amount of the parental allowance, so that both parents who are born after 1.1.2008 and parents who were born before that date are entitled to the same amount of the parental allowance provided that they fulfil the conditions for granting the parental allowance at a specific level.
45. The Constitutional Court summarises that, although the provisions under appeal were adopted in some cases to reduce the level of social rights previously attained, it was not for the reasons set out above that intervention would be such as to infringe their substance and purpose.
46. In the light of the above reasons, the Constitutional Court rejected the application of the Regional Court in Brno pursuant to the provisions of § 70 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v. r.
Contents
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
„Čl. XXIV
VII.
VIIa/ Shrnutí obsahových změn, jež napadená ustanovení vyvolávají
VIIb/ Posouzení ústavněprávních námitek obsažených v návrhu
VIIba/ Námitka nepřípustné retroaktivity a nezákonného zásahu státní moci do již jednou nabytých práv
VIIbb/ Porušení zásady legitimního očekávání
VIIbc/ Námitka nepřípustné diskriminace
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No. 42 / 2013 Coll., on the application for annulment of Article XXIV points 4 and 5 of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., on the stabilisation of public budgets |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | - |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 20.02.2013 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0