The Constitutional Court found No 57 / 1999 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 10 March 1999 on the application for annulment of Article 8 (6) of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., on extrajudicial rehabilitation
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
02.04.1999
57
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Czech Republic
On 10 March 1999, the Constitutional Court decided in plenary on the proposal of the District Court for Prague 1 to repeal Article 8 (6) of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., on extrajudicial rehabilitation,
as follows:
Paragraph 8 (6) of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., on extrajudicial rehabilitation, is deleted from the date of the publication of this finding in the Collection of Laws.
Reasons
On 14 October 1998, a motion by the District Court for Prague 1 submitted pursuant to Article 95 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) and Article 64 (4) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court was served on the Constitutional Court. As is apparent from the proposal, there has been a dispute between the Prosecutor M. L. and the President's Office since 1992. By this action, the plaintiff, as a beneficiary under § 3 of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., on extrajudicial rehabilitation, seeks the conclusion of an agreement on the issue of real estate in K. Hradčany of the City of Prague 1, namely the so-called Lobkovický Palace and two built-up plots. The defendant refuses to issue the requested property to the claimant on the grounds that they are part of the national cultural monument "Prague Castle ', which is registered in the State List of Real Estate Cultural Monuments under registration No 1-922, i.e. with reference to § 8 (6) of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll.
Resolution No 10 C 195 / 92 of 12 August 1998 The District Court of Prague 1 suspended the proceedings and the file, together with the application for annulment of Article 8 (6) of Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. referred it to the Constitutional Court when it considered that this provision, which should be used in the resolution of the dispute, was contrary to the Constitution.
In particular, the appellant submits that the so-called restitution laws issued to remedy certain property injustices that occurred during the so-called applicable period are special rules in relation to general civil law. These laws can be divided into two groups. The first group is a law which does not provide for specific legal action to correct property injustices and the transfer of assets to designated beneficiaries takes place by law. The second group, which also includes Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., constitutes laws which, on the contrary, require that the holder of the property be ordered to be issued to be returned.
Act No 87 / 1991 Coll. states in § 3 that only a natural person whose case has been transferred to the State may be entitled under the conditions set out in § 6 of that Act, provided that the applicant has the citizenship of the Czech Republic. Paragraph 8 (6) of the Act states, however, that "A matter declared a national cultural monument shall not be published until the Czech National Council and the Slovak National Council have adopted a new law on the administration and protection of national cultural monuments." In the view of the Court, this provision has been for almost 8 years preventing a certain number of beneficiaries from exercising their right to atonement, which is contrary to the purpose of this law, which is expressed in its provision and in § 1. A certain group of beneficiaries is postponed with their claims to a timeless period, and, moreover, in a rather vague way, because there is no certainty when and whether the envisaged law will be adopted at all. Similarly, it is not clear whether the legislator meant the adoption of a comprehensive new law, or a law only changing and supplementing the still valid act of the ČNR No. 20 / 1987 Coll., on state conservation. By comparing the classification of this provision (.), it will not be issued until then. It can be concluded that things declared a national cultural monument are or will be things that cannot be published. This conclusion is also supported by Paragraph 8 (5) of this Act, which confers on a person whose case cannot be issued the right to financial compensation under Article 13 (1).
For all these reasons, the appellant is of the opinion that Article 8 (6) of Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. infringes Article 1 of the Constitution and Articles 1, 3 (1) and 4 (2) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter ').
The Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic stated in its observations that the contested provision was only incorporated into the law at the time of its hearing by the legislature, as there was no such provision in the original draft law or in the explanatory memorandum. In her view, this provision does not call into question the fact that the applicant is a legal person. This provision only regulates the conditions for their publication for a clearly defined heading of matters with the national cultural heritage regime. Therefore, the legislator did not intend to completely exclude or restrict a group of beneficiaries to the detriment of others, whether by imposing unfair conditions or by discriminating against them. It was clearly intended to issue these things only after the approval of the new legislation on the administration and protection of cultural monuments, when the existing legislation does not provide adequate protection. In the opinion of the Chamber of Deputies, it is clear that this is a completely new law and not a mere amendment, which shows the importance that the legislator attaches to this matter. With regard to the unclear time limits for adoption, the Chamber of Deputies does not consider such an adjustment to be contradictory to the democratic principles of the legislative process; on the contrary, it would consider it contradictory to set a firm deadline for the adoption of the new legislation.
For those reasons, they do not share The Chamber of Deputies considers that the contested provision is contrary to Article 1 of the Constitution or Articles 1, 3 (1) or 4 (2) and (3) of the Charter. Finally, it is noted that Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. was approved by the necessary majority of legislative members and was duly declared. It is for the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality of the contested provision and to take the relevant decision.
The opinion, which according to Article 48 (2) of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll. requested by the Judge-Rapporteur of the Ministry of Culture, states that, in accordance with the Government Resolution No 632 of 30 September 1998 on the Plan of Legislative Works of the Government for the remainder of 1998 and 1999 and on the Overview of Legislative Works of the Government for the years 2000 to 2002, the Ministry of Culture is preparing a proposal for a substantive intention of the Act on the Protection of Cultural Monuments. This proposal will be submitted to the Government for consideration in June 1999. For this reason, the Ministry does not recommend that Paragraph 8 (6) of Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. be repealed, but proposes to await new legislation.
In particular, the Plenum of the Constitutional Court found that it was not necessary to consider whether Law No 87 / 1991 Coll. had been issued within the limits of the Constitution laid down competence and in a constitutional manner, since it had already stated that these conditions had been fulfilled in its findings published under No 164 / 1994 Coll. and No 153 / 1998 Coll.
As regards the case itself, the plenary of the Constitutional Court concluded that the application was justified. This conclusion is based on the following arguments:
Act ČNR No. 20 / 1987 Coll., on State Heritage Care, states in § 4 that the determination of what is to be considered as a national cultural monument is carried out by the government by its decree. Paragraph 9 sets out the special obligations of the owner of the cultural monument, Article 13 provides for the pre-purchase right of the State on these matters and Article 15 (3) provides for the procedure in cases where the owner fails to take care of the national cultural monument. The latter provision also allows for the expropriation of property in certain cases. Paragraph 42 (2) of the transitional provision provides that national cultural monuments declared under the former legislation shall be regarded as national cultural monuments under this law.
According to the implementing decree of the Ministry of Culture of the Czech Socialist Republic No. 66 / 1988 Coll. a central list of cultural monuments is maintained, which also states that a cultural monument is declared "national."
The current situation is, therefore, that what will be issued from the so-called national cultural monuments to beneficiaries is actually decided by the government, which, by its regulation, can remove certain things from the list, or the declaration by the national cultural monument to limit or specify them. As an example of such procedure, the Decree of the Government of the Czech Republic No. 404 / 1992 Coll., which, contrary to the original definition that the national cultural monument is the entire Old Town Square in Prague, was determined that only the Palace of Kinsky, the Old Town Hall and the Church of the Holy Mother before Tyn would continue to have this character, and similarly the declaration of the historical centre of Tábor as a national cultural monument was limited. Another such measure was the Decree No. 262 / 1995 Coll. concerning, for example, the castle of Záslav, the so-called Müller Villa by Adolf Loose in Prague-Střešovice, Klementina, Villa Tugendhat in Brno, the chateau Telč and Kromeriz, the Pusteven complex in Beskydy and a number of other objects in the Czech Republic. The Decree of Government No. 171 / 1998 Coll. then redefined the definition of the national cultural monuments of the castle and the fortress of Špilberk in Brno, the Slavic Hradiště in Mikulčice, the Rotunda in Znojmo, the J. A. Komenský Memorial in Fulnek and other buildings, by identifying the plots and the buildings which will continue to form these monuments and by virtue of Section 8 (6) of Law No. 87 / 1991 Coll., it will no longer be possible to issue them.
The Government's regulation, which is a formal legislative act, is de facto to issue individual administrative acts which, as a result, open the path to restitution to certain beneficiaries by deleting certain assets from the list of national cultural monuments or by deleting them differently. Paragraph 8 (6) of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., originally meant as a blocking provision, can therefore in fact circumvent the Government.
It follows from what has been stated that there are currently several sub-groups among the restituents, consisting primarily of those who have used their claims for property which, at the time of the claim, was a national cultural monument and which is still the case (which is the case pending by the court which put forward the proposal), persons who, after the claim was claimed, had been allocated from the list of national cultural monuments and, finally, persons who did not apply their claims precisely for the existence of the provisions of Section 8 (6) of Law No 87 / 1991 Coll.
The constitutionality of the definition of the Qualifying Persons heading in Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll. dealt with the finding of Pl. ÚS 3 / 94 (ÚS, 1, 279 - 291). On the question whether there is a legal reason to exclude certain entities from the scope of those who otherwise fulfil the characteristics of a certain restitution title, the Constitutional Court replied in the negative when it stated that the framework of the possible restriction was given only by Article 11 (2) of the Charter, i.e. that certain things could only be owned by citizens of the Czech Republic. It concluded that the Charter "does not empower the legislator to determine further conditions for the acquisition of ownership (whether in the context of the restitution process or in general) '. For these reasons, the permanent residence condition was declared contradictory to Article 11 (2) of the Charter.
In the Pl. ÚS 33 / 96 (ÚS, 8, 163 et seq.) The Constitutional Court stated that it had no reason to deviate from that view and further recalled its decisions, in which it interpreted the content of the constitutional principle of equality, in particular Pl. ÚS 16 / 93 (ÚS 1, 194 - 195, 205 - 206), Pl. ÚS 36 / 93 (ÚS 1, 179), Pl. ÚS 5 / 95 (ÚS 4, 218), Pl. ÚS 9 / 95 (ÚS 5, 137). In all these findings it is noted that this principle is understood by the Constitutional Court as already expressed by the Constitutional Court of the CSFR (ÚS ČSFR, 1992, No 11): "It is certainly for the State to decide, in order to safeguard its functions, that it will provide a group with less benefits than others. But even here, he must not go any further... it can only happen with reference to public values. '; Thus, the Constitutional Court understands the equality of citizens as relative, while the content of this concept shifts into the area of constitutional acceptance of the distinction between entities and law. First, the point of view refers to the exclusion of the likes and the second point of view, in particular in the case of inequality in social relations, to a fundamental right or freedom.
The Constitutional Court found that it had no reason to change those legal views either. In view of that conclusion, the decision on the application for annulment of Paragraph 8 (6) required, in particular, to assess whether the exclusion of a group of beneficiaries from the right to issue a case, generally justified by the fact that the existing legislation on the protection of cultural monuments was not sufficient, would stand within the meaning of the above legal opinions and principles.
It is clear from the analysis of the legislation still in force that it is not decisive to declare a particular real or movable item as a national cultural monument to the ownership regime. It is therefore a law which provides for certain restrictions and special arrangements for the owner in cases where he does not take proper care of the property. Despite the fact that ČNR Act No. 20 / 1987 Coll. was issued in totally different social and economic conditions and some of its provisions are undoubtedly no longer applicable, it gives, in the view of the Constitutional Court, sufficient resources to protect cultural values while respecting the rights of the restituents. The obligation of the owner of the cultural monument (i.e. also national) to take due care of its preservation and maintenance follows from § 9 of the ČNR Act No. 20 / 1987 Coll., where also the extensive powers of the monument care bodies are laid down in relation to the owner who does not fulfil his obligations. In Section 13, the priority right of the State to purchase cultural monuments is established, etc. While it is questionable whether any of the restrictions in this law are compatible with Article 11 (4) of the Charter, the existing legislation is not so inapplicable as to justify the creation of a special group of restituents. Rather, it can be said that the rights of the State restricting the owner are often at the limit of constitutionality. However, the Constitutional Court, bound by the scope of the proposal, could not deal with this.
Thus, the Constitutional Court does not share the legislator's view that there is a reasonable reason for their exclusion from the normal regime of the restitution process for national cultural monuments. Therefore, the regulation in force appears to be a plight of the legislator who, without compelling reasons and arguments, discriminates against a group of former owners or their legal successors without overriding the interest in protecting public values. Accordingly, the contested provision is contrary to Article 1 of the Constitution and Article 1 of the Charter.
Those reasons were considered sufficient by the Constitutional Court to abolish the contested provision without also addressing the question of the constitutional acceptability of the legislature's silence, namely the fact that this provision of the envisaged new law had not been issued for approximately 8 years, as well as whether the former federal legislator's call at all was binding at the time of its publication or even at the time of its publication. The Constitutional Court therefore expressed its opinion on the eight-year silence of the legislature only by not delaying the enforceability of the operative part of the judgment on the annulment of the contested provision of the Act (§ 58 (1) and § 70 (1) of Act No 182 / 1993 Coll.).
President of the Constitutional Court:
v. JUDr. Holecek v. r.
Vice-President
He took a different position in this case under Article 14 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, Judge JUDr. Vladimir Paul.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found no. 57 / 1999 Coll., on the application for annulment of § 8 (6) of Act No. 87 / 1991 Coll., on extrajudicial rehabilitation |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 02.04.1999 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0