The Constitutional Court found No 495 / 2002 Coll.

The proposal to repeal the provisions of Paragraph 10 (5) of the Second Act No. 133 / 2000 Coll., on the registration of residents and birth numbers and on the amendment of certain laws (the Act on the registration of residents), as amended, is rejected.

The Office of the City of Prague 13, Department of Civil Administration, by decision of 25.6.2001 No. R 62 / 01 / Ma recognised Ing. J. Z. ("the complainant ') by a guilty offence in the general internal administration section pursuant to § 42 (1) (e) of Act No. 200 / 1990 Coll., on infringements, as amended, (" the Act on Transfers'), which has been committed since 15.1.2001 by the fact that he has not yet taken over the new ID No 085790 of Act No. 085790 of Act No. 328 / 1999 Coll., with the official address of Janský 2370 / 91, Prague 5-Stodůznky, and thus since 15.1.2001, he has not yet had a citizen's card under § 2 (2). For this he was fined in accordance with the provision of § 42 (2) of the Act on Infringements of CZK 500 and was ordered to pay according to § 79 (1) of the Act on Infringements and under the Order of the Ministry of Interior No. 231 / 1996 Coll., which sets out the lump sum of the costs of the infringement proceedings, the costs of the proceedings in the amount of CZK 500. Indication of the place of the complainant's permanent residence at the address K. 1940 / 1, Prague 5, Office of the Municipality of Prague 13, Department of Civil Administration, annulled with reference to the provisions of § 12 (1) of Act No. 133 / 2000 Coll., on the registration of residents and birth numbers and on the amendment of certain laws (the Act on the Registration of Residents), the judgment of 6.12.2000 No. OS / 00 / No with effect from the date of the acquisition of the legal power of the complainant's decision (i.e. from 3.1.2001), since it was proved, in the course of proceedings initiated on the complainant's application, that the judgment of the District Court of Prague of 27.5.1997 No. 9 C 257 / 94- 93 confirmed by the judgment of the Municipal Court in Prague of 7.3.2000 No. 16 Co. The complainant was subsequently determined, in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 (5) of the Act cited, the address of the permanent residence at the place of the reporting office in which the permanent residence was officially cancelled, i.e. at Janský 2370 / 91, Prague 5.

The Municipality of the City of Prague, the Department of Civil Affairs, by decision of 29 August 2001 No. MHMP 97601 / 2001, RP 12 / 2001, the appeal of the complainant pursuant to the provisions of § 59 (2) of Act No. 71 / 1967 Coll., on Administrative Procedure (Administrative Order), rejected and quoted decisions of the Office of the City of Prague 13, Department of Civil Service, confirmed. In his reasoning of the decision of the Municipality of the City of Prague, the Department of Civil Affairs stated in particular that the infringement was proved to the complainant by an infringement procedure. The facts of the infringement (the complainant refused to take over the identity card with the so-called official address and the identity card no longer exists) result from the notification of the Civil ID department and the notification of the residence of the residents of the Civil Service Office of the City of Prague 13 of 17.1.2001 on the non-acceptance of the identity card, from the official record drawn up in the same department with the complainant on 15.1.2001 and from the protocol of 11 June 2001 concerning the hearing of his infringement. The Municipality of the capital of Prague, the Department of Civil Service Agencies, pointed out that the complainant's argument that he had not committed the offence because he refused to take over a defective identity card, which allegedly contained false data about his permanent residence (note: the registered office of the Office of the City of Prague 13, i.e. Prague 5-Stodůlka, Janský 2370 / 91) does not affect another assessment because he committed the offence. The Department of Civil and Administrative Office of the City of Prague 13, by decision of 6.12.2000 No. OS / 00 / No in accordance with the provisions of § 12 (1) of Act No. 133 / 2000 Coll. annulled the information on the place of permanent residence of the complainant at K. 1940 / 1, Prague 5, with effect from the legal authority of the decision (note: the decision became final on 3 January 2001). In accordance with the provisions of Section 10 (5), second sentence, of the People's Register Act, the place of residence of the complainant became the registered office of the Reporter (see above), in whose territory the permanent residence was officially abolished. On 15 January 2001, the complainant was drawn up with an identity card with an officially assigned address of the office, which he refused to take over on the same day. The Municipality of the Capital City of Prague, the Department of Civil Service Agencies, also pointed out in the statement that the provision of § 10 (5) of the Second Act on the Registration of Residents "is broken not only by the principle of the permanent residence of a citizen, but also by the fact that the permanent residence of a citizen can only be in an object which, under the building law, is intended for housing, accommodation or individual recreation. This provision establishes an institute of so-called, official addresses, which may not meet the conditions laid down for a permanent residence in accordance with Article 10 (1) of the Act on the registration of residents'. The Appellate Body stated that, in the event of official cancellation, data on the place of permanent residence of the citizen is not a choice of permanent residence by the citizen, the place of permanent residence of the citizen will be the registered office of the reporting office," until he chooses another place of permanent residence in accordance with Article 10 (1) of the Act on the registration of residents. Article 10 (2) of the Act on the registration of residents, according to which there are no rights to the building or property owner to apply for permanent residence. An indication of the permanent residence of a citizen shall be regarded as an administrative matter and shall not constitute any rights of use. '; The Appellate Body therefore concluded that the administrative authority of the first instance acted in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Infringements and Administrative Regulations and that no grounds were found for any other assessment of the case.

In the constitutional complaint against the heading mentioned by the decision of the Municipality of the City of Prague, the Department of Civil Affairs, and the Office of the City of Prague 13, the Civil Service Department, the complainant stated in particular that "he could not commit or commit any offence, since he had not been drawn up a valid ID card to date and therefore could not take it over." In particular, those decisions infringed his fundamental right to freedom of movement and residence [Article 14 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter ')], Article 2 Protocol No 4 to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the equality of citizens (Article 1 of the Charter), the prohibition of discrimination (Article 3 (1) and (3) of the Charter), the right to the integrity of a person and his privacy (Article 7 (1) of the Charter), the right to personal freedom (Article 8 (1) of the Charter), the right to protection of persons (Article 10 (1) of the Charter) and the right to judicial protection (Article 36 (1) and (2) of the Charter). In particular, the complainant pointed out that it refused to take over the identity card with the so-called officially assigned address, as it contains data contrary to the facts. (The residence of the reporting office is indicated here as a permanent residence, which does not correspond to the reality, because it does not live here, does not stay there and does not have any property, nor is it possible to reside within the meaning of the Act on the registration of residents at this address.) The complainant added that, according to Article 2 (1) of the Civil ID Act, the identity card is a public document, which, according to Article 134 of the Civil Code, confirms, unless proven otherwise, the truthfulness of what is certified or confirmed in it. According to the complainant, the newly issued identity card is therefore in conflict with the quoted provisions of the civil Code of Procedure" and as such this official document of the complainant's person is invalid and therefore unacceptable to the complainant'. In another complaint, the complainant pointed out that according to § 10 (1) of the Act on the registration of residents, the place of permanent residence is the address of the citizen's residence in the Czech Republic chosen by the citizen, and that he may (not necessarily) have only one permanent residence, thereby "giving the citizen an option between one and no permanent residence.... the citizens' registration law does not imply a citizen's obligation to have a permanent residence." The complainant therefore considers that, in its situation (and taking into account that under Section 3 (2) of the Civil ID Act, permanent residence of a citizen is a compulsory indication entered on the citizen's card), i.e. when his previous permanent residence has been officially cancelled in accordance with Section 12 (1) of the Civil ID Act, he must "have this fact, i.e. the abolition of his permanent residence, as the only true indication of his new identity card '. In addition, the complainant considers that the appellate body's statement that the provision of § 10 (5) of the second Act on the registration of residents establishes an institute of so-called official address which may not comply with the conditions laid down for permanent residence in accordance with § 10 (1) of the Act cited, since there is no such provision in the text of the Act. Likewise, in relation to the appellate authority's claim that the principle of the choice of permanent residence by a citizen is broken by the provision of Paragraph 10 (5) of the Second Act on the registration of residents - the complainant points out that" it also does not appear from the text of the law that the so-called official address could be entered on the citizen's card against the will of the citizen' [Note: Paragraph 3 (2) (a) of the Civil ID Act implies, however, that the compulsory entry in the identity card is also the permanent residence of the citizen.] In such a case, that provision would be contrary to Article 1 of the Charter, since the right to choose the address of the citizen in the Czech Republic must apply without distinction to all citizens of the Czech Republic pursuant to Article 1 of the Charter and it is not possible in this case to officially assign the address of his permanent residence to the citizen, in addition to not being able to reside at that address. Finally, the complainant stated that from the newly drawn up identity card (where the address of the reporting office is indicated as "permanent residence ') it was not in any way apparent that the address of Janské 2370 / 91, Prague 5-Stodelka, was only the" official address' of the complainant, and not the address of the citizen under the law, where he is not actually resident or allowed to reside. The complainant notes, therefore, that the information provided in the newly drawn up ID No 085790 PH is contrary to the facts and thus does not comply with the requirements laid down in the authentic instrument and is therefore not a citizen card within the meaning of the law. The complainant, who refused to take over it, therefore insists that it has committed no infringement of its conduct and believes that the regulation of any permanent residence address (i.e. permanent residence) without its consent is contrary to the Charter and that the contested decisions of the administrative authorities affect its above-mentioned fundamental rights.

In the complainant's view, therefore, there was an intervention in its constitutional rights directly linked to the application of the provisions of § 10 (5), second sentence, of the Act on the registration of residents by administrative authorities, according to which "If the permanent residence is officially cancelled (§ 12), the place of permanent residence is the registered office of the Reporter, in which the citizen's permanent residence has been officially abolished." According to the complainant, the provision cited is not in accordance with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, since its application against the will of the citizen is in breach of the abovementioned fundamental rights and freedoms and, in particular, the right to freedom of movement and residence within the meaning of Article 14 (1) of the Charter.

Therefore, the complainant suggested that the Constitutional Court annul the provision of Section 10 (5) of the Second sentence of the Act on the Registration of Residents, as amended by: "If the permanent residence is officially cancelled (§ 12), the place of residence is the registered office of the Reporter, in whose territory the citizen's permanent residence has been officially cancelled. 'and then the Chamber of the Constitutional Court, in conjunction with the decision of the Municipal Council of the City of Prague, Department of Civil Service, of 29.8.2001 No.

By order of the First Chamber of the Constitutional Court of 24.1.2002 sp. zn. I. ÚS 645 / 01, the proceedings for a constitutional complaint under the provisions of § 78 (1) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court (hereinafter referred to as "the Law on the Constitutional Court ') were suspended and the motion for the annulment of the cited provisions of the Act on the registration of residents was referred to the plenary of the Constitutional Court for a decision pursuant to Article 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as" the Constitution').

The parties to the proceedings - Chamber of Deputies and Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic (pursuant to Section 69 of the Law on the Constitutional Court) and the Ministry of Interior (within the meaning of Section 48 (2), Section 49 (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court) commented on the application for annulment of the provision cited.

First of all, the Chamber of Deputies stated that the contested provision of Paragraph 10 (5) of the Act on the Registration of Residents contained only legislation for the administrative resolution of the situation where the citizen's place of residence was officially abolished and where the citizen did not choose his place of residence elsewhere. The registration of a permanent residence at the registered office of the competent reporting office does not interfere with the constitutional right of a citizen to free movement because the legal order does not order him to stay there or prevent him from choosing another permanent residence in the Czech Republic at any time or leaving it. The Chamber of Deputies further pointed out that the complainant mixes two different and different things - the citizen's permanent residence record report, on the one hand, and the constitutional right to free movement and freedom of residence, on the other. This latter constitutional right to freedom of movement contained in Article 14 of the Charter - which, pursuant to paragraph 3 of the same Article, can be restricted (if, for the reasons stated therein, it is inevitable) by law only - is clearly not denied and not at all restricted to the complainant. Nor does the Chamber of Deputies hold the view of the complainant that the "Citizen can have only one permanent residence '(Paragraph 10 (1) of the Population Register Act) can be inferred from the fact that the citizen may have no permanent residence, or vice versa, that he may have more than one. The Chamber of Deputies has therefore pointed out that if the legislator really wanted to express such a fact, he would have used a different dictate to express that fact precisely. Therefore, the approach used by the complainant is a purely purposeful and disproportionate interpretation of the rule of law.

The Chamber of Deputies also pointed out that the traditional permanent residence institution is currently being treated by several hundred laws in force and is one of the major institutions of public law dealing with the way in which the public administration and the citizen interact.

Finally, the Chamber of Deputies stated that the Act on the Registration of Citizens (including its amendment published under No. 2 / 2002 Coll., which was not challenged by the complainant) was approved after a properly implemented norm-making process, signed by the relevant constitutional officials and declared in the Collection of Laws. In doing so, the legislature acted in the belief that the citizens' registration law was in line with the Constitution and the Charter.

The Chamber of Deputies therefore takes the view that the provisions of Paragraph 10 (5), second sentence, of the Act on the Registration of Citizens are in accordance with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic and it is for the Constitutional Court to examine the complainant's submission and issue the relevant finding.

In its observations on the complainant's proposal, the Senate noted, first of all, that the complaint against the contested provision was accepted by the Senate in the framework of the draft Act on the registration of residents referred to it by the Chamber of Deputies, and the Senate discussed that proposal at its 18th meeting of the second term of office on 12 April 2000. In the debate, the Minister of the Interior, as a representative of the Government, recalled the link of this proposal to the previously adopted Civil ID Act and, in particular, pointed out that - contrary to the current regulation - the obligation to declare permanent residence would not be imposed, but only the change of address could be reported. The rapporteur of the Senate Guarantee Committee stated, inter alia, that the problem remains with the interpretation of the concept of "permanent residence 'and noted that the Chamber of Deputies has adopted a resolution to that effect asking the Ministry of the Interior to conduct an analysis of the Institute of permanent residence in relation to the State and the owner of the accommodation. In the Senate vote (serial number 72) of the 67 senators present, 36 senators (10 senators opposed) voted in favour of adopting the bill's recommendation, thus reaching an absolute majority of senators present. As a result, Senate Resolution 331 expressing the Senate's will not to deal with the bill on the registration of residents, which means that the law has been adopted in accordance with Article 48 of the Constitution.

The Senate further noted that the legislation on the declaration of residence under the People's Records Act undoubtedly does not restrict the freedom of movement and residence, since it is only of a registered nature and "a natural person merely sets up an official address for possible communication with the public administration. The Act does not in the least permit the decision of any Czech citizen to change his place of residence at any time and to move as he wishes, unless he is prevented by an individual decision of the court (prohibition of residence, detention, etc.)." The underlying issue is the problem of the legal nature of reporting a change in permanent residence; It is said that the imfeasibility of the task of legislating to define the concept of permanent residence clearly excluded the legislator from the possibility of establishing an obligation to report its change. In this context, the Senate points out that, if a citizen is not guided by his own need to change the registration in the register of residence (social assistance, general elections, official service, etc.), such registration remains as it was before the citizens' registration law was effective, or as it was recorded or recorded at birth (§ 10 (3) and (4)), or noted after the cancellation of the registration of the chosen permanent residence (§ 12), i.e. "on a case-by-case basis, it was completely fictional '. In this context, the Senate points out that, under the provisions of Section 2 (2) of the Civil ID Act, a citizen is required to have a citizen's card and under the provisions of Section 3 (2) (a) of the Civil ID Act, the permanent residence of a citizen is a compulsory entry in the civil ID. It is therefore clear that this figure is recorded by the public authority on an official basis in accordance with the rules laid down by law, i.e. under the presumption of correctness regime. The Senate has therefore added that this" somewhat complex legal structure can certainly raise doubts or ambiguities "(e.g. in relation to the possibility of a" homeless person "to change the address of the reporting office to which its residence is based), but the entry of permanent residence data in the complainant's citizen's card" appears to be an act in accordance with the applicable law. "The Senate summarised that it was up to the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of the draft contested provisions and to rule.

In its observations, the Ministry of the Interior pointed out, first of all, that the declaration of permanent residence within the meaning of the Act on the Registration of Residents is a registered act of public law (which is relevant, for example, in relation to the designation of local jurisdiction in administrative proceedings, for the exercise of electoral law). In accordance with the provisions of Section 10 (2) of the Act on the permanent residence of residents, there are no rights to the object at which the citizen is reported and to the owner of the property. In the area of private relations, however, only the legal reason for living (within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Civil Code) and the actual use of an apartment or house is relevant. Therefore, the Act on the registration of residents does not bind the registration to permanent residence for the use of the building and does not require citizens to report a change of permanent residence. In the event that the statutory conditions for applying for permanent residence are fulfilled, the administrative authority shall not examine whether the address of the permanent residence corresponds to the place where the citizen actually resides. The Ministry of the Interior therefore stated that the cancellation procedure concerning the place of permanent residence of the citizen due to the termination of the right of use and the actual use of the object by a citizen within the meaning of Article 12 (1) of the Act on the registration of residents could not be initiated on an official basis, but is always conditional on the design of the authorised person (user, operator) and is justified for the protection of the rights of that authorised person. The Ministry of the Interior has pointed out that a citizen who has lost his right to use an object and who is not actually using it has the possibility to apply for permanent residence elsewhere, has the possibility to declare a change in his permanent residence - under the conditions laid down in § 10 (6) of the Act on the registration of residents - in order to exercise the right to choose a permanent residence in accordance with § 10 (1) of the Act on the registration of residents.

The Ministry of the Interior also stated that the legal arrangements governing the permanent residence in specified cases of residence of the reporting office (Sections 10 (4) and 10 (5) of the Act on the registration of residents) were "guided by an attempt to allow citizens who do not have the possibility to apply for permanent residence in another place, to have a permanent residence in the territory of the Czech Republic, which is bound by the application of a number of rights and thus to be the holder of a citizen's card, the issue of which is conditional on permanent residence in the Czech Republic." The Ministry of the Interior takes the view that the provisions of Section 10 (5) of the Act on the registration of residents must be regarded as specific in relation to Section 10 (1) of the Act on the registration of residents. Therefore, in statutory cases, the place of residence of the citizen may be the place of the reporting office, even if it is a place which the citizen has not chosen, and an object which is not intended for housing, accommodation or individual recreation. The Act on the registration of residents does not even use the term "official address' and the address of the place of permanent residence at the registered office is equivalent to the address of the place of permanent residence and not to its specific category.

Finally, the Ministry of the Interior took the view that the provisions of Paragraph 10 (5) of the Second Act on the registration of residents did not conflict with the constitutional order. In view of the importance of the permanent residence institution within the meaning of the Act on the registration of residents, which does not establish a citizen's obligation to stay at the permanent residence address, the Ministry considers that, as a result of the application of the legislation, there is no interference with the right to freedom of movement and residence within the meaning of Article 14 (1) of the Charter and that it is not affected by other constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms.

Even before the Constitutional Court dealt with the proposal formically, it focused on the question of whether all the assumptions for such discussion were given formal.

The Constitutional Court found that, in the present case, the reason for initiating the procedure for the so-called specific control of standards within the meaning of Article 64 (1) (d), in conjunction with Article 74 of the Constitutional Court Law, was given, since the contested legal provisions were actually applied by the competent public authorities in the case at hand, i.e. the application of which led to a constitutional complaint.

The Constitutional Court also addressed the question of whether the Act on the Registration of Citizens was adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution of the given jurisdiction and in a constitutionally prescribed manner within the meaning of Article 68 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court. In this regard, he found that the Chamber of Deputies approved Act No. 133 / 2000 Coll. at its meeting held on 9 March 2000, when out of 153 Members present, 150 Members voted against the motion and 2 voted against. It was further demonstrated from the short-term report of the 18th Senate meeting held on 12.4.2000 (2nd term, 18th session, p. 194) that the Senate (67 senators present) expressed the will not to deal with the draft Act No. 133 / 2000 Coll.; 36 senators voted in favour, 10 senators voted against.

The Constitutional Court therefore notes that the Act on the registration of residents has been properly adopted and issued by the Parliament of the Czech Republic within the limits of its Constitution, within the meaning of § 68 (2) of the Law on the Constitutional Court. After the adoption of Act No. 133 / 2000 Coll. was signed by the relevant constitutional authorities and duly declared in the Collection of Laws in the amount of 39 sent out on 17.5.2000. This Act entered into force on 1.7.2000, § 1 (b) and (c), § 3 (3), § 6 (c), § 13 to 17, § 25 (b), § 26 and § 28 (2) and (3) shall take effect on 1.1.2003.

In this situation, the Constitutional Court took the view that the content of the contested provision of the law was compatible with the constitutional order.

The complainant requests the annulment of the provisions of § 10 (5), second sentence, of the second Act on the registration of residents, which reads: "If the permanent residence is officially cancelled (§ 12), the residence of the permanent residence is the registered office of the reporting institution in whose territory the permanent residence has been officially abolished by the citizen."

The complainant contends (as can be seen from the constitutional complaint) that the contested provision does not comply with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, since its application against the will of the citizen is in breach, in particular, of the fundamental right to freedom of movement and residence (Article 14 (1) of the Charter), of the equality of citizens (Article 8 (1) of the Charter), of the prohibition of discrimination (Article 3 (1) and (3) of the Charter), of the right to the integrity of the person and of his privacy (Article 7 (1) of the Charter), of the right of personal freedom (Article 8 (1) of the Charter), of the right of protection (Article 10 (1) and of the Charter). It is therefore - as can be seen from the complainant's proposal - an alleged violation of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, which also constitutes the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

This view is not shared by the Constitutional Court.

In particular, the Constitutional Court examined whether the provision of Section 10 (5), second sentence, of the Act on the Registration of Citizens is contrary to Article 14 (1) of the Charter.

Article 14 (1) The Charter is guaranteed freedom of movement and residence. It is clear that freedom of movement means the right not only of a citizen but of everyone to move within the territory of the Czech Republic defined by its national borders and to visit individual places except those for which the law provides for restrictions within the meaning of Article 14 (3) of the Charter. Freedom of residence is undoubtedly (with the exception of paragraph 3) the right to reside and settle in any place in the Czech Republic, i.e. the right to freely choose residence within the Czech State. Thus, this constitutional right to freely choose its long-term or short-term residence (residence) at a certain place does not entail a requirement (regulation) in that place (residence) to actually stay or to inform the public authority of such actual residence (residence). After all, the doctrine traditionally distinguishes the freedom of residence from the so-called "register of residence" in which the fiction is concerned - the place of the declared residence is not often the place of actual residence "(see Pavlíček, V. - Hřeběk, J. - Knapp, V. - Kostecka, J. - Sovák, Z.: Constitution and constitutional order of the Czech Republic. Episode 2: Rights and Freedoms, Linde a.s., Prague 1995, p. 136).

Paragraph 10 (1) of the First Act on the registration of residents states that the place of residence is the address of a citizen in the Czech Republic, usually chosen by a citizen in a place where he has a family, parent, apartment or job. It follows, therefore, that such a place may not only be associated with such grounds. On the other hand, however, this does not mean (as is apparent from the sentence of the second paragraph) that a citizen may not have a permanent residence or vice versa that he may have more than one. It is therefore clear from the (general) legislation that the place of residence is the address of the residence chosen by the citizen, which can only be one.

Paragraph 10 (5), second sentence (similar to paragraph 4) of the People's Records Act, does not provide for a social relationship based on the choice of a citizen (as is the case with Section 10 (1) of the People's Records Act), but regulates the situation which presupposes prior action under the provisions of Section 12 (1) of the People's Records Act (i.e. the official abolition of the place of such residence) and addresses only the consequences that result for the place of permanent residence. It is therefore (as in the case of paragraph 4) a special legislation which does not prevent the citizen concerned from exercising the right to choose the place of permanent residence (under the provisions of Paragraph 10 (1) of the Population Register Act) or in accordance with the procedure laid down in paragraphs 10 (5) and 10 (6) of the Population Register Act, i.e. the declaration of a change of permanent residence under the conditions set out therein. The contested provision therefore concerns only one possible - in the provision of Section 10 of the Act on the registration of residents modified - forms of identification (changes) of the place of residence and primarily fulfils the above mentioned registration function, from which there are no consequences for the selection of the place of residence.

The Constitutional Court therefore concludes that the contested provision did not infringe the freedom of movement and residence in the terms of Article 14 (1) of the Charter or the principle of equality in the terms of Article 1 of the Charter. For the same reasons, there was no breach of Article 2 of Protocol 4 to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court's application for annulment of the provisions of § 10 (5), second sentence, of the People's Register Act, as amended by "If the residence of the permanent residence is officially cancelled (§ 12), is the registered office of the Reporter in whose territorial district the permanent residence has been officially abolished."

With regard to the other complainants alleged infringements of fundamental rights and freedoms [i.e. non-discrimination (Article 3 (1) and (3) of the Charter), the right to the integrity of a person and his privacy (Article 7 (1) of the Charter), the right to personal freedom (Article 8 (1) of the Charter), the right to protection of persons (Article 10 (1) of the Charter) and the right to judicial protection (Article 36 (1) and (2) of the Charter), the complainant does not state and does not specify in what the contested provision of Article 10 (5) of the Second Act on the registration of citizens with those fundamental rights is contrary. Nor has the Constitutional Court reached that conclusion.