The Constitutional Court found No 470 / 2021 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 9 November 2021 sp. zn.
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
14.12.2021
470
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
The Constitutional Court decided under sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 114 / 20 on 9 November 2021 in plenary composed of the President of the Court of Paul Rychetský and the Judges Louis David, Jaroslav Fenyk, Josef Fialy, Jan Filip, Jaromír Jirsy, Tomáš Licenčník, Radovan Suchanek, Pavel Šámal (Judge of the Rapporteur), Kateřina Šimáková, Vojtěch Šimíček, Milady Tomková, David Uhlíř and Jiří Zemánek, on the proposal of the Regional Court in Pilsen on the abolition of § 8a (Act on the insurance of liability of vehicles), on the conditions of traffic on land roads and on the amendment of Act No. 168 / 1999 Coll.
as follows:
Motion denied.
Reasons
Subject matter
1. The Regional Court in Pilsen (hereinafter also "the applicant"), pursuant to Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") and Article 64 (3) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the Law on the Constitutional Court"), submitted a proposal to the Constitutional Court for the annulment of Article 8a (2) of the Act No. 56 / 2001 Coll., on the conditions for the operation of vehicles on the road and the amendment of Act No. 168 / 1999 Coll., hereinafter referred to as "(hereinafter referred to as" Law No 56 / 2001 Coll. ")," and paragraph 4 (b), "(hereinafter referred to as" the contested provision).
2. The appellant made the application after, in proceedings for an action against a decision by an administrative authority under point 57 A 93 / 2018 in accordance with Article 95 (2), The Constitution concluded that the contested provision was contrary to Article 36 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter ').
The facts of the case
3. On 19 December 2017, the applicant requested the City Council of Pilsen (hereinafter referred to as "the Administrative Authority ') to register the change of the owner of the road vehicle (which he was the owner of at the time according to the register of road vehicles) in the register of road vehicles, since he transferred the right of ownership to another vehicle by contract of 13 July 2015 and did not give him any interaction when transcribing the vehicle data. In the application, the applicant referred to the procedure under Section 21 of Act No. 101 / 2000 Coll., on the Protection of Personal Data and on the amendment of certain laws, as amended, (" Act No. 101 / 2000 Coll.').
4. Since, contrary to the contested provision, the applicant did not submit a record-keeping report of more than 30 days old and the so-called green card, the administrative authority did not comply with the application by decision of 28 March 2018 No MMP / 314962 / 17 / 12. The applicant's appeal was rejected by the Regional Office of the Pilsen Region ("the Administrative Board of Appeal ') by Decision of 22 May 2018 No PK-DSH / 5363 / 18. It is submitted that it was not possible to apply Act No. 101 / 2000 Coll., since the data are registered in the register of road vehicles under Act No. 56 / 2001 Coll.
5. The applicant contested those decisions by bringing an action before the applicant. It argued that the administrative authorities had failed to apply Law 101 / 2000 Coll. and did not consider its submission on 19 December 2018 as an incentive to proceed under the same law. He referred to the judgment of the Municipal Court of Prague of 23 September 2016 No 5 A 139 / 2013-38 and the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 6 December 2016 No 7 As 254 / 2016-33. The applicant stated that it was not within its power to obtain the documents required under the contested provision.
6. By judgment of 30 September 2019 No 57 A 93 / 2018- 45, the appellant annulled the contested decisions and referred the case back to the administrative authority for further proceedings. According to the appellant, none of the documents to which Law No 56 / 2001 Coll. refers in the contested provision is of any relevance to demonstrating whether the right of ownership of the vehicle has been transferred. If the legislator requires that the data in the register of road vehicles correspond to the actual situation, the failure to submit the required documents could not be an obstacle to the applicant's application for registration of the change of owner.
7. By judgment of 28 May 2020 No 9 As 346 / 2019-28, the Supreme Administrative Court annulled that judgment of the appellant and referred the case back to him for further proceedings. It is submitted that, in addition to the registration of the actual and current owners of road vehicles, the register of road vehicles has a further, equally important purpose, ensuring that only vehicles complying with the prescribed technical conditions and with the closed liability insurance are operated on the road. The Supreme Administrative Court stated that it was aware of "stalemate situations' which made it impossible to record the actual status of the data in the register of road vehicles, but it was for the applicant to act prudently and responsibly in order to fulfil his legal obligation to request the registration of a change to the vehicle owner; the required documents could have been obtained without difficulty prior to the transfer of the title to the vehicle.
8. The appellant subsequently submitted an application to the Constitutional Court for annulment of the contested provision.
Arguments of the appellant
9. The appellant contends that the application of the contested provision by the Supreme Administrative Court would be contrary to Article 36 (1) of the Charter.
10. The appellant first summarised procedural developments in the case. It further stated that the legal arrangements in force do not allow the existing owner in the register of the registered owner (s) to effectively request the registration of the change of ownership data to the vehicle in a situation where the new owner does not provide synergies and the current owner does not have a protocol for the registration of a road vehicle not more than 30 days old and the so-called green card. The existing owner is thus prevented from seeking compliance with the registered status with the actual status. The appellant considers this obstacle to be an intervention in the constitutional right to judicial and other legal protection.
11. Acceptance of such a condition is not, according to the applicant, "in a rational relation to the purpose [Act No. 56 / 2001 Coll.]." The purpose of the same act is to ensure the compliance of the data in the vehicle register with the actual state. Although the Supreme Administrative Court referred to a further, equally important purpose, it therefore prefers it to that which the appellant relied on in the reasoning of his original judgment. The solution proposed by the Supreme Administrative Court leads to "freezing 'the state of registration in the register of road vehicles, which does not correspond to the facts without the" interested party' having a real opportunity to achieve change. The Supreme Administrative Court admits that.
12. Neither of the wording of Act No. 56 / 2001 Coll. nor of the explanatory note to Act No. 63 / 2017 Coll., amending Act No. 56 / 2001 Coll., on the Conditions for the Operation of Vehicles on the Road and amending Act No. 168 / 1999 Coll., on the Insurance of Liability for Damage Caused by the Operation of the Vehicle and on the Amendment to Certain Related Laws (Act on Liability Insurance from the Operation of the Vehicle), as amended, Coll., and other related Laws, which included in Act No. 56 / 2001, there is no apparent "legitimate and rational reason and purpose" which would justify the failure to change the ownership of the vehicle by an existing owner, if the new owner does not act of the synergy.
Observations of the parties and interveners
13. The Judge-Rapporteur pursuant to Paragraph 69 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 18 / 2000 Coll., sent the draft Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Senate) and the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Chamber of Deputies) as parties to proceedings. It also sent the proposal to the Government and the Ombudsman as state bodies, which are entitled to intervene under Paragraph 69 (2) and (3) of the same Act.
14. The Chamber of Deputies stated in its observations that the contested provision was inserted by Act No. 63 / 2017 Coll. His proposal was submitted by the Government to the Chamber of Deputies on 22 December 2015. The proposal was discussed as House Press 683. The first reading of the draft law took place on 3 June 2016, when the draft law was ordered to be discussed by the Economic Committee. It discussed it and on 2 September 2016 issued a resolution to Members as House Press No. 683 / 2. The second reading of the Act took place on 25 October 2016 at the 50th session of the Chamber of Deputies; the amendments were drafted as House Press No 683 / 3 and circulated on the following day. The Economic Committee, as a guarantee committee, discussed the draft law and issued a resolution, which was delivered to Members on 4 November 2016 as House Press No. 683 / 4. At the third reading, the bill was passed on 30 November 2016 in the presence of 165 Members, all were present for the proposal. On 20 December 2016 The Chamber of Deputies passed the Senate Bill, which was approved on 19 January 2017 (Resolution No 81). The approved Act was delivered to the President of the Republic on 31 January 2017. He signed it the same day.
15. According to the Chamber of Deputies, the legislature acted in the belief that the adopted law was in accordance with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic. It is for the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of the contested provision.
16. The Senate stated in its observations that § 8a was inserted into Act No. 56 / 2001 Coll. by Act No. 63 / 2017 Coll. His proposal was delivered to the Senate on 20 December 2016 as print No 24. On 4 January 2017, the Bill was dealt with by the Committee on Territorial Development, Public Administration and the Environment, which recommended that it be approved by Resolution 15 as approved by the Chamber of Deputies. The Committee on Economy, Agriculture and Transport also recommended approving the draft law by Decree No 24 of 11 January 2017. The Senate included a discussion of the bill at its 4th meeting of the 11th term and discussed it on 19 January 2017. There was no senator in the general debate. The Senate approved the bill referred by the Chamber of Deputies by Resolution No 81 when voting serial number 47. Of the 52 senators present, 45 were in favour, no one opposed. The Senate has discussed the draft law within the limits of the Constitution and in the manner laid down. Finally, the Senate states that it is up to the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of the contested provision.
17. The Government, through the Minister of Justice, has stated that it has approved its entry into the proceedings and has proposed the rejection of the proposal. First, the Government argues that the contested provision can be interpreted in a constitutional fashion; Refers to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 19.1.2005 No 4 As 26 / 2003-59 and to the judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court in the case decided by the appellant (sub 7). The Supreme Administrative Court's legal opinion is binding on the appellants; This indicates that his proposal is clearly unfounded.
18. Furthermore, the Government argues that the register of road vehicles contains, inter alia, the registration of vehicles, owners and vehicle operators. The purpose of registration of vehicles is to ensure that only vehicles which (1) meet the technical conditions are moved on the road, (2) for which the liability insurance obligation for their operations is fulfilled, and (3) for which the compliance of their identification data with the information specified in the relevant documents is verified. However, it is also necessary to register the actual and current owner of the road vehicle. Rights and obligations are linked to the operation of the vehicle and responsible persons must be identified.
19. Paragraph 8 (2) (a) of Act No 56 / 2001 Coll. provides for an obligation to submit a joint application within 10 working days of the transfer of ownership. Pursuant to Article 8 (4) (a) of the same Act, the application for registration of an amendment shall be accompanied by relevant documents. The submission of a technical licence shall verify compliance with the prescribed technical conditions. The submission of a record-keeping report not older than 30 days shall verify the conformity of the actual state of the road vehicle and its identification data with those in the relevant documents. The presentation of the so-called green card ensures that, immediately after the transfer, any damage caused in connection with the operation of the vehicle can be covered by liability insurance for the operation of the vehicle.
20. Furthermore, the Government argues that if the new owner or the existing owner does not provide synergies, the other has the possibility to initiate the procedure under Article 8a of Law No 56 / 2001 Coll. in which he is not bound by the procedure for the co-operation of the latter and has the possibility to obtain the registration of the required change. In such a situation, the applicant shall provide proof of acquisition of the property right, a record-keeping record not older than 30 days and a green card. That provision was inserted into Act No. 56 / 2001 Coll. by Act No. 63 / 2017 Coll. in order to enable the owner of the vehicle to resolve the situation associated with the failure of the new owner.
21. The Government points out that, by abolishing the contested provision, the obligation to submit any documents in accordance with § 8a of Act No 56 / 2001 Coll. would be abolished. The administrative authority would therefore take decisions without any basis and could not assess whether the transfer of ownership law took place. The withdrawal of that obligation would also significantly simplify the process of registration of the amendment compared to the "general 'method under § 8 of the same law (joint application). This is undesirable as the procedure under Section 8a of Act No 56 / 2001 Coll. is an exceptional and" emergency' solution. Each of the required documents is used to demonstrate the facts necessary for proper records (sub 20).
22. The Government points out that the procedure under Article 8a of Act No 56 / 2001 Coll. always precedes the infringement of the legal obligation to submit a joint application within the prescribed period. The procedure laid down in § 8a of the same law is not the only procedure in which the existing owner can prevent a situation in which he is unable to complete the registration of the change of owner without the cooperation of the new owner. It has the possibility by contract to ensure, for example, that it is empowered to submit a joint application. If the new owner would submit an application under that provision immediately after the expiry of the 10-day period for the submission of a joint application and the registration check was carried out shortly before the transfer of ownership, the original owner shall have all the necessary documents. Therefore, that provision does not provide for any non-compliance. The Government stresses that ownership is associated not only with rights but also with obligations. Therefore, the "factual 'impossibility of registration of the change occurs only in a situation where the new owner does not provide synergies, but at the same time the previous owner submits a request for registration of the change at a longer time interval or does not provide for a registration check himself shortly before the transfer.
23. The Government refers to the plaintiff's situation as a "partial problematic aspect" and claims that the Government's proposal for amendment to Act No. 56 / 2001 Coll., which was discussed by the Chamber of Deputies at the time of the processing of the observations, is responding to it as House Press No. 1046. First, that draft law abolishes the obligation to submit a registration report for the application for registration of the vehicle owner; the competent administrative authority has remote access to the Protocol. Secondly, that government proposal extends the validity of the result of the registration check from 30 days to two years. Therefore, the proposed legislation eliminates obstacles preventing the owner of the vehicle from seeking registration of the change of the vehicle owner. The only documents to be submitted in accordance with § 8a of Act No. 56 / 2001 Coll., are proof of acquisition of the property right and the so-called green card. It is not necessary to have the vehicle at your disposal to negotiate the insurance of liability from the operation of the vehicle (the acquisition of the so-called green card) or to arrange it itself by the owner. The Government argues that even if the result of the registration check was not extended, the de facto obstacles to registration of the change would be overcome; the obligation to submit the record-keeping report itself is decisive.
24. For the above reasons, the Government proposes that the Constitutional Court reject or reject the appellant's application.
25. The Ombudsman informed the Constitutional Court that he would not use his right to intervene.
26. The Judge-Rapporteur sent the observations received to the appellant in the light of a reply, if any. However, the appellant did not exercise its right to reply within the specified period.
Abandonment of oral proceedings
27. The Constitutional Court concluded that further clarification of the case cannot be expected from oral proceedings and therefore, in accordance with Article 44 of the Constitutional Court Act, it decided on the case without its regulation.
Text of the contested provision
28. Paragraph 8a (2) of the First Law No 56 / 2001 Coll., which contains the contested provision, reads: "Paragraph 8 (3) and (4) (b) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the application for the registration of a change in the owner of a road vehicle and its annexes." Paragraph 8 (4) of Act No 56 / 2001 Coll., to which the contested provision refers, reads: "The application for registration of a change of the owner of a road vehicle shall be accompanied by:
(a) in the case of transfer of title
1. registration of a road vehicle,
2. a report on the registration of a road vehicle not more than 30 days old; and
3. a green card issued under the Vehicle Liability Insurance Act if the road vehicle is not disabled,
(b) in the case of a transfer of title
1. proof of acquisition of the right of ownership of a road vehicle; and
2. the documents referred to in point (a); the application shall not be accompanied by a technical document and a certificate of registration of the road vehicle, if not available to the applicant, and a report on the registration of the road vehicle, if the applicant simultaneously submits an application for registration of the loss of the road vehicle. ';
Procedural assumptions of the annulment procedure
29. Pursuant to Article 95 (2) of the Constitution, if the court concludes that the law to be applied in the resolution of the case is contrary to constitutional order, it shall bring the matter before the Constitutional Court. The General Court shall be entitled to make a proposal if it proposes the repeal of the law or its individual provision, the application of which is to be immediate or necessary; the hypothetical use or other broader context is not sufficient [cf. Order of 23.10.2000 sp. zn. It follows from the purpose and meaning of the so-called specific control of the constitutionality of legislation that the law (its individual provisions) to be applied in the resolution of the case is only a law which obstructs the achievement of a desirable, i.e. a constitutional, consensus result. If not removed, the outcome of the present proceedings would be different, namely non-constitutional [cf. point 26 of the decision of 6.3.2007 sp. zn.
30. The Constitutional Court considers the conditions of Article 95 (2) of the Constitution and Article 64 (3) of the Law on the Constitutional Court to be fulfilled in the present case. The Regional Court in Pilsen is entitled to file an application for annulment of the contested provision as it is to be used in the administrative action before it. In the proceedings, the applicant shall assess whether the obligation to submit the relevant documents under the contested provision precludes the applicant's application for registration of a change to the vehicle owner. It is therefore a provision of the law relating to the decision-making activities of the appellant, which is to be used immediately when dealing with the case.
31. Therefore, the procedural assumptions of the annulment procedure (its provisions) are fulfilled in the present case.
Constitutional conformity of the legislative process
32. The Constitutional Court has dealt with the course of the legislative process and found that the data provided in the statements of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate (sub-paragraphs 14 to 16) demonstrate that the law of which the contested provision is part has been adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution of the established competence and in a constitutional manner. This is also not disputed by the appellant.
Substantial assessment of the proposal
33. Although the Constitutional Court consistently underlines that, when assessing the infringement of the law with the constitutional order, it is bound only by a petition and not by its reasoning [finding of 24.5.1994 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 16 / 93 (N 25 / 1 SbNU 189; 131 / 1994 Coll.) or point 71 of the judgment of 27.1.2015 sp. zl. ÚS 16 / 14 (N 15 / 76 SbNU 197; 99 / 2015 Coll.)], it does not conclude that the appellant in the standard control procedure, argument - if it does not comply with the law with the constitutional order, does not impose a burden of claim. In other words, if the appellant is opposed to the content of the non-compliance of the law with the constitutional order, for the purposes of constitutional review, it is not only sufficient to indicate the repeal of the proposed law, or its individual provisions, but it is necessary to state the reason for the inconstitutionality being contested. The Constitutional Court is then not bound by this ground - it is bound only by the petition but not by the scope of the review of the grounds contained in the application for the control of the standards [cf. the finding of 31.1.2008 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 24 / 07 (N 26 / 48 SbNU 303; 88 / 2008 Coll.) or point 38 of the finding of 18.5.2021 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 23 / 20 (230 / 2021 Coll.)].
34. As stated by the Government, § 8a of Act No. 56 / 2001 Coll., which is part of the contested provision, regulates the situation where one of the persons required to file a joint application for registration of a change to the owner of a road vehicle on the basis of a transfer of ownership pursuant to § 8 of the same law does not provide the necessary synergies to submit a joint application. In the application scheme under Section 8a of Act No. 56 / 2001 Coll. Therefore, the applicant has the possibility to apply for registration of the change itself, without direct cooperation of the other person. However, according to the contested provision, it is necessary to provide evidence of the application in such a situation, in addition to proof of the acquisition of the right of ownership of the vehicle, of the so-called green card and of the registration check protocol not more than 30 days old. A vehicle registration certificate and registration certificate shall not be submitted for a joint application unless the applicant is available.
35. The appellant attaches the inconstitutionality of the contested provision to the fact that he places on the applicant for registration changes the information on the owner of the road vehicle not meeting the conditions of the requirement of submission of the documents sub 34 and therefore unjustly prevents the change of the vehicle owner in the vehicle register if the new or existing owner does not provide synergies. On the other hand, the Government contends that the obligation to provide evidence under the contested provision is not fulfilled, since the situation in which the law prevents applicants from complying with their application for registration of a change in the owner of a road vehicle is a consequence of a breach of their legal obligation and not of prudent conduct. The appellant and the Government therefore agree that the contested provision, in certain circumstances, prevents the administrative authority from complying with the applicant's request to register the change of the owner of the road vehicle.
36. If it is a green card, as the Government points out, there is nothing to prevent an applicant who has not been given cooperation and who has no vehicle or other documents available from obtaining the green card. The so-called Green Card, pursuant to Article 3 (3) of Act No. 168 / 1999 Coll., on the insurance of liability for damage caused by the operation of a vehicle and on the amendment of certain related laws (the Act on Insurance of Liability from the Operation of a Vehicle), as amended, ("Act No. 168 / 1999 Coll. '), is issued to the insurer by a contract on insurance of liability for damage caused by the operation of the vehicle [Paragraph 2 (e) of Act No. 168 / 1999 Coll.]. The possibility of concluding such a contract shall not be linked to ownership of the vehicle nor shall it depend on the status recorded in the vehicle register; Nor does the necessary content of the insurance contract in accordance with § 3 (4) of Act No. 168 / 1999 Coll. Submission of the so-called green card is therefore not an impossible condition to comply with the application for registration of a change to the owner of the road vehicle.
37. If there is an obligation to submit a record-keeping report not more than 30 days old, the Government stresses that it is in the power of the applicant to ensure that the document is available to him (sub 22). Registration inspection, as a type of technical inspection carried out at the Technical Inspection Station, is governed by Decree No. 211 / 2018 Coll., on vehicle roadworthiness tests, as amended ("Decree No. 211 / 2018 Coll. '). According to paragraph 7 of Annex No 2 to Decree No 211 / 2018 Coll., the vehicle registration certificate, registration certificate or certificate of technical unit and technical certificate of separate technical unit or extract from its technical certificate, if the technical unit is fitted, should be documented to carry out the registration check. By its very nature, it is necessary to dispose of the vehicle to carry out the registration check.
38. If, therefore, the applicant is unable to register the change of owner by the vehicle and the documents necessary to carry out the registration check, the submission of the registration check report shall not be a real obstacle; it may carry out an inspection without difficulty. A problem may arise if the applicant is in possession of a vehicle but no longer has the necessary documents to carry out the registration check. Paragraph 8a (3) in conjunction with Paragraph 10 (4) of Law No 56 / 2001 Coll. remembers the situation where the existing or new owner who did not submit the application holds a technical licence or certificates. The failure to submit those documents alone shall not prevent the registration of the change of owner. However, that provision only solves the following situation (registration of the change of owner) and does not solve the problem of missing documents for carrying out the registration check. Equally, there is a problem if the applicant does not have to register the change of owner by the vehicle itself.
39. In those circumstances, therefore, there may indeed be a situation where the applicant for registration of the change of the owner of the road vehicle cannot be successful at the time. It is, however, about whether such an obstacle to the detriment of his constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms. For such a finding it is determined first of all what the consequences of the failure of the applicant to register the change in his legal sphere protected by the constitutional order of the Czech Republic have. The applicant does not claim any specific negative consequences of the "stalemate 'in the legal sphere of the applicant for registration of the change of owner; it objects in a purely general plane to the contradiction with Article 36 (1) of the Charter. As it is based on the applicant's assertion before the applicant, his argument was based on an interest in processing accurate personal data within the meaning of Act No. 101 / 2000 Coll.
40. First of all, it should be pointed out that if, following the transfer of the right of ownership to register the change of owner, the existing owner is subject to objective liability of the vehicle operator (which is essentially its owner) for the infringement of the driver's obligation under Section 125f of Act No. 361 / 2000 Coll., on road traffic and on amendments to certain laws (Road Traffic Act), as amended, ("Act No. 361 / 2000 Coll. ') - see, for more more, the finding of 16.5.2018 sp. However, he remembers similar situations in Act No. 361 / 2000 Coll.; Paragraph 125f (6) (b) of the same Act excludes that liability of the existing owner (operator) if, at the time before the breach of the driver's obligation, he has submitted a request for registration of the change of the vehicle operator. That liberal plea is not linked to the successful conclusion of the registration procedure, which may be hindered by the contested provision, but only by the application. Therefore, if the applicant is free from that liability, the failure to succeed in the application for registration of a change of ownership in this respect does not affect his legal status [of course, in a situation where the public authorities interpret Article 125f (6) (b) of Act No. 361 / 2000 Coll. by including an application for registration of a change of ownership pursuant to § 8a of Act No. 56 / 2001 Coll.].
41. Another considered negative aspect associated with the impossibility of registration of the change of the owner of the vehicle is possible liability for the offence pursuant to § 83 (1) (b) of Act No. 56 / 2001 Coll. That provision combines liability for the offence with a breach of the obligation to submit a joint application within 10 working days of the date of transfer of the property right (Paragraph 8 (2) of the same Act.). However, such a situation, as the Government points out, necessarily precedes the procedure under § 8a of Act No 56 / 2001 Coll., and therefore the effects of the contested provision do not affect the application of liability for that offence.
42. Nor does the contested provision otherwise adversely affect the applicant's ownership of the change. According to the established decision-making practice of the Supreme Administrative Court, vehicle registration does not have any private legal effects, in particular in property law (cf. sp. zn. 4 As 26 / 2003-59, paragraph 16 in judgment of 27.7.2016 No 10 As 114 / 2015-39 or paragraph 22 in judgment of sp. zn. 7 As 254 / 2016). A similar assumption is that the acquisition of the right of ownership of a vehicle is not linked to its registration in the register of road vehicles, since the register of vehicles is not a public register, the Supreme Court is based consistently (see judgment of 20.9.2017 No 22 Cdo 5330 / 2015-193, Order of 26.11.2020 No 29 ICdo 144 / 2018- 105 or Order of 27.5.2021 No 23 Cdo 742 / 2021). The Constitutional Court has no reason to question that assumption in any way. The right of ownership to transfer the contested provision itself is not affected.
43. The Constitutional Court, however, in the decision of 14.5.2019 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 21 / 18, as amended by the amending order of 3.7.2019 (N 77 / 94 CollNU 54; 173 / 2019 Coll.), admitted that the entry status of the data in the register of road vehicles also has implications in the field of private law; Although the register of road vehicles is not a public list of stricto sensu, it continues to be a public register which has specific effects on the exercise of property rights (cf. points 62 and 75 of the above-mentioned finding). The earlier case-law of the Constitutional Court also does not see the restriction of that constitutionally guaranteed right only in the limitation of the possibility of the transfer itself, but also in the "limitation of the use of property '[the possibility of the owner with the property otherwise legally to dispose of or benefit from it, cf. paragraph 42 et seq., paragraph 43. Therefore, the possibility of interference in the ownership sphere needs to be seen more widely.
44. Nevertheless, the right to use a vehicle or any other content element of ownership in the present case is not affected. In principle, two problematic situations can occur; 1. If the previous owner is incompetent and 2. If the new owner is incompetent (as in the case addressed by the applicant).
45. If there is a lack of cooperation between the existing owner (sub 44 ad 1), the possible negative consequences of the contested provision in the legal sphere of the new owner should be examined. It should be pointed out here that, if the new owner does not have a record-keeping protocol, not more than 30 days old, the vehicle or the documents required to carry out the registration check (sub 38), are problematic. In such a situation, however, the possible restriction on the possibility of using the vehicle is not due to the effects of the contested provision (the impossibility of registering the change of owner in the procedure under § 8a of Act No 56 / 2001 Coll.), but solely to the procedure of the existing (unrelated) owner. In other words, the fact that the previous owner did not hand over the new owner a vehicle or the required documents, in itself makes it impossible for the new owner to use the vehicle properly and the effects of the contested provision do not appear in the legal sphere of the new owner in this respect.
46. If there are practical difficulties in the further transfer of ownership of a vehicle by a new owner, if the status of registration in the vehicle register does not correspond to the actual situation (cf. point 75 of the decision sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 21 / 18), the new owner has the opportunity to seek the issue of the vehicle and the necessary documents in order to comply with the obligation under the contested provision, if the beneficial owner is its beneficial owner. In such a situation, an existing owner who has not provided synergies and has not at the same time handed over a vehicle or required documents to the new owner, detains these matters unjustly. It should be pointed out again that if the new owner is in possession of the vehicle and the documents necessary for carrying out the registration check, nothing prevents him from carrying out the registration check and the obligation to comply with the contested provisions.
47. If there are possible negative consequences in the legal sphere of the existing owner in the non-activity of the new owner (sub 44 ad 2), it should be stressed that if the transfer of ownership is perfect, which is one of the necessary conditions for a successful application to register the change of owner, the vehicle is entitled to use the new owner. Therefore, in such a situation, the exploitation right of the existing owner cannot be affected.
48. Therefore, the obligation laid down in the contested provision is not reflected in the ownership of the person concerned.
49. Further concerns may be raised by the contested provision in the matter of the protection of personal data, as alleged by the applicant in proceedings before the appellant, in which he sought the registration of the change of the owner of the vehicle with reference to the right to rectify personal data pursuant to Act No. 101 / 2000 Coll. Without further examination of whether the constitutional order of the Czech Republic guarantees the right to rectify the data collected in accordance with the facts and, where applicable, whether such a right also affects the information on the owner of the vehicle in the vehicle register, it is necessary to point out points 22 et seq., of the judgment in sp. zn. 7 As 254 / 2016, according to which the removal of the data in the vehicle register can be permitted even at the request of the person who is registered as the owner in the vehicle register but proves that he is no longer the beneficial owner (cf. situation from sub 44 ad 2). For this, however, it is necessary to provide the administrative authority with proof of the final judgment of the civil court on the determination that the person in question is not the owner of the vehicle. In such a situation where the case-law of the administrative courts permits the removal of data on the owner of the vehicle, the consequences of the contested provision cannot be regarded as an obstacle to the removal of registered data on its person, if not in accordance with the facts. Moreover, the applicant referred to that possibility in the proceedings before the appellant (sub 5).
50. Similarly, if the situation mentioned above is 44 ad 1 in the context of personal data protection, reference should be made to the possible procedure of sub 46 (action for extradition). Thus, the new owner is not deprived of the possibility of complying with the obligation under the contested provision and of bringing the registered data on his person into line with the facts.
51. Finally, the appellant must focus on the alleged contradiction of the contested provision with the right of everyone to seek his or her right in an independent and impartial court and, in specified cases, another authority (Article 36 (1) of the Charter). As stated above, the legal order in the situation foreseen in § 8a of Law No 56 / 2001 Coll. provides both the existing and the new owner with the non-activity of the other person with the means of achieving the change or removal of the registration of the vehicle owner, albeit not directly in the administrative procedure. The Constitutional Court does not find it disproportionate that the possible negative consequences of the non-compliance of the data entered in the register of vehicles with the actual state cannot be eliminated directly in the administrative procedure under Section 8a of Act No 56 / 2001 Coll.
52. First, the contested provision of the law cannot be interpreted in isolation, but following the rule of law as a whole [cf. Point 46 of the judgment of 16.5.2018 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 15 / 16 (N 95 / 89 SbNU 409; 116 / 2018 Coll.) or point 75 of the judgment of 26.1.2021 sp. zl. ÚS 22 / 17 (124 / 2021 Coll.)]. Secondly, it is here that it must be taken into account that the procedure under Section 8a of Act No 56 / 2001 Coll. it is designed as a solution to the situation which the existing or new owner has entered as a result of a breach of his original obligation to submit a joint application within the prescribed time limit pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the same law, including the required documents.
53. The above legal means of civil justice can be considered as effective since there is no interest in solving the situation extremely quickly. While there is always an interest in dealing with a matter before a public authority as quickly as possible, there is some complexity and perhaps lengthening of the solution is compensated precisely by the fact that the new or existing owner is in the situation of his own action (breach of legal obligation). Moreover, the non-activity of one person is a matter of setting up mutual rights and obligations of the new and existing owner. It is therefore legitimate to leave the rule of law to civil courts to deal with such a matter. It should also be pointed out that if one of the persons does not provide the necessary synergies, the other person should, in principle, be entitled to compensation. However, such an assessment falls exclusively to the general courts after an assessment of the specific circumstances of the case.
54. It is therefore in this overall context that the design described above to bridge the consequences of the contested provision must be viewed. Although the Constitutional Court admits that the solution provided by the rule of law is not optimal, it is decisive in assessing the constitutionality of the contested provision that the rule of law makes it possible to amend or remove data in the register of vehicles which contravene the facts effectively in the specific circumstances. It is not for the Constitutional Court to seek a "factually correct 'or an" optimal' solution in proceedings under Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution.
55. Finally, it is necessary to appeal to the public authorities to interpret in a constitutional manner, in accordance with the relevant legislation referred to above, in order to exclude any liability for offences in a situation where the existing owner submits an application for registration of a change in the owner of a road vehicle pursuant to § 8a of Act 56 / 2001 Coll., to enable the owner of the vehicle to be able to comply with the obligation laid down in the contested provision and to ensure compliance with the data recorded in the vehicle register. Only in this way can it be ensured that data on the owner of the vehicle in the vehicle register do not contradict the actual situation or that the consequences of the contested provision are otherwise not adversely reflected in its legal sphere.
Conclusion
56. For the reasons set out above, the Constitutional Court did not find the alleged infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms and therefore rejected the application for its annulment under Paragraph 70 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act.
President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský v. r.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found No 470 / 2021 Coll., on the application for annulment of Section 8a (2) of Act No 56 / 2001 Coll., on the conditions for the operation of vehicles on the road and amending Act No. 168 / 1999 Coll., on insurance of liability for damage caused by the operation of a vehicle and on the amendment of certain related laws (Act on Insurance of Liability from the operation of a vehicle), as amended by Act No. 307 / 1999 Coll. |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 14.12.2021 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
Legal Areas:
Transport
Administrative law
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0