The Constitutional Court found No 71 / 2019 Coll.
The Constitutional Court found of 22 January 2019 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 32 / 17 on the application for annulment of Act No. 340 / 2015 Coll., on special conditions for the effectiveness of certain contracts, the publication of these contracts and the register of contracts (Act on the Register of Contracts), as amended
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
14.03.2019
Zobrazeno prvních 200 z celkem 289 ustanovení tohoto předpisu.
Zobrazit celý předpis →
Pro stažení celého znění použijte tlačítko Stáhnout výše.
71
FIND
The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic
The Constitutional Court decided under sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 32 / 17 on 22 January 2019 in plenary composed of the President of the Court of Paul Rychetský and the Judges Louis David, Jaroslav Fenyk, Josef Fiale, Jan Filip, Mr Jan Musil (Judge of the Rapporteur), Vladimir Sládeček, Radovan Suchánek, Kateřina Šimáčková, Vojtěho Šimíček, Milady Tomková, David Uhlíř and Jiří Zemánek, on the motion of the Senate Group of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, under which Senator Mgr. Radko Martínek, is legally represented by Mgr. Lukaš a Lorenec, a lawyer, on the cancellation of Law No. 340 / 2015 Coll.
as follows:
Motion denied.
Reasons
Subject matter
1. By a proposal pursuant to Article 64 (1) (b) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, a group of 30 Senators (hereinafter referred to as "the draftsman") seeks the annulment of Act No. 340 / 2015 Coll., on special conditions for the effectiveness of certain contracts, the publication of these contracts and the register of contracts (Act on the Register of Contracts), as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Law"), or the repeal of § 2 (1) (b), (k) in the words "or national enterprise" (n) and § 8 (3) of the same Act.
2. The appellant is convinced that the law on the register of contracts, or at least its selected provisions, is contrary to the constitutional order. The appellant refers to the classification of national undertakings [§ 2 (1) (k) of the Act on the Register of Contracts] and legal entities with the majority participation of the State or of the local authorities [§ 2 (1) (n) of the Act on the Register of Contracts] as a problem. They shall be classified in accordance with Article 26 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Charter '). As constitutionally problematic, the appellant also sees the relatively ambiguous or vague terms of" business secrets' or "transactions carried out to a large extent outside the territory of the Czech Republic ', which lay down exceptions to the obligation to publish selected contracts, contained in § 3 (2) (d) and § 5 (6) of the Treaty Register Act, as well as the fact that § 3 (2) (l) of the Treaty Register provides for inequality between otherwise equal entities (municipalities and municipalities with extended scope). As regards the register of contracts itself (Sections 4 and 5 of the Act on the Register of Contracts), the appellant considers the method, procedure and format of publication of the required data in the Register and, in particular, the scope of the metadata published (Section 5 (5) of the Act on the Register of Contracts). The parties to the binding effect of the contracts concerned on their publication in the register, including the content required (paragraphs 5 to 8 of the contract register), are convinced that such a design constitutes such a fundamental interference with the principle of contractual freedom that it will not stand in any of the constitutional tests. The possibility of further healing of any defects in the publication of the contract in the contract register (§ 7 (2) to (4) of the contract register law) is considered insufficient. Finally, the appellant considers that the Act on the Register of Contracts has inadmissible retroactive effects, since contracts concluded before its effectiveness are subject to the obligation of publication as a result of their subsequent amendments, additions or cancellations, which comes from Section 8 (3) of the Register of Contracts.
3. The Act on the Register of Contracts therefore considers the appellant as a whole to be conflicting with the right to do business under Article 26 (1) of the Charter, with the principle of equality enshrined in Articles 1 and 3 (1) of the Charter, the principle of the autonomy of the will and the prohibition of retroactivity. It therefore proposes the repeal of the entire law or, where appropriate, the repeal of the above mentioned selected provisions.
Derogation of the contract register law
4. The law on the register of contracts, as in force on the date of service of the application, reads:
Subject matter
This law regulates specific conditions for the effectiveness of certain contracts, the publication of such contracts through a register of contracts and a register of contracts.
Published documents
(1) A private-law contract and a grant or repayable financial assistance contract shall be published by means of a contract register.
(a) Czech Republic,
(b) the local self-governing body, including the urban or urban district of the territorial subdivided statutory or urban part of the capital of Prague;
(c) a state contribution organisation;
(d) the State Fund;
(e) a public research institution or a public university;
(f) voluntary association of municipalities,
(g) the Regional Council of the Cohesion Region;
(h) the contribution organisation of the local authority;
(i) an institution set up by the State or the local authorities in total;
(j) a public utility company set up by the State or the local authorities in total;
(k) State enterprise or national enterprise;
(l) health insurance company,
m) Czech Radio or Czech Television, or
(n) a legal person in which a State or a territorial self-governing entity itself or with other territorial self-governing entities has majority participation, including through another legal person.
(2) Paragraph 1 shall not apply to a legal person established under a law other than Czech law which is predominantly outside the territory of the Czech Republic.
Exemptions from the obligation to publish
(1) The register of contracts shall not disclose information which cannot be provided in accordance with the rules governing free access to information.
(2) The obligation to publish through a contract register does not apply to:
(a) a contract resulting from legal negotiations with a natural person acting outside the scope of his business; This does not apply if the transfer of ownership of a person referred to in Paragraph 2 (1) to a tangible immovable property is sought,
(b) technical design, instructions, drawing, project documentation, model, method of calculation of unit prices, model and calculation;
(c) a contract concerning the activities of the intelligence services and the General Inspection of Security Councils or the activities of law enforcement authorities in preventing, seeking or detecting crime or prosecuting criminal offences or in the management of State tangible reserves in the acquisition and management of State tangible reserves or in the security or defence of the Czech Republic;
(d) a contract the performance of which is carried out predominantly outside the Czech Republic;
(e) a contract concluded in an adhesion manner, the contracting party of which is a legal person referred to in § 2 (1) (e), (k), (l), (m) or (n), with the exception of contracts concluded under a procurement procedure under the Public Procurement Act;
(f) contracts, orders and invoices relating to the activities of the authorities, their members and the organisational components of the State referred to in Article 8 (3) of Act No. 218 / 2000 Coll., on budgetary rules and amending certain related laws (budgetary rules) and the activities of the administrators of their chapters,
(g) a contract concluded on a commodity exchange, on a regulated market or on a European regulated market, in an auction or in an auction or other similar procedure with which a special transfer or transfer of ownership is linked;
(h) a contract where at least one party to the contract is a public limited liability company whose securities have been admitted to trading on a regulated market or on a European regulated market, in the case of a public limited liability company in which the State or a local authority itself or with other territorial authorities has a majority shareholding, including through another legal person;
(i) contract if the value of its subject matter is CZK 50 000 without value added tax or less;
(j) a contract concluded with the author or performer in connection with the work of authors or artists;
(k) the contract for the provision and payment of health services paid for by public health insurance and the contract for the reimbursement of medicinal products containing vaccines for periodic vaccination according to the antigenic composition of vaccines established by the Ministry of Health under the Public Health Protection Act, published under the Public Health Insurance Act;
(l) a contract where at least one contracting party is a municipality which does not exercise the extended scope, a contribution organisation established by that municipality or a legal person in which such a municipality itself or with other such municipalities has majority participation;
(m) a contract concluded by a public university in the framework of a complementary activity or a public research institution in another research, development and innovation activity;
(n) a contract involving the handling of an explosive or a device or object intended for its manufacture or storage;
(o) a contract relating to the production or use of the programme, including a contract to acquire rights to use the programme, at least one party to which the Czech Television or the Czech Radio is a party;
(p) a contract protected by banking secrecy; This does not apply if the contract between the bank and the person referred to in Article 2 (1) concerns the use of public funds,
(q) collective agreement,
(r) a contract concluded by a legal person referred to in Article 2 (1) (k) or (n) which has been established for the purpose of meeting needs having an industrial or commercial character or for the purpose of research, development or testing, provided that such contract has been concluded in the ordinary course of trade within the scope of the activity or business of that legal person registered in the public register. This shall not apply if it is a contract concluded with a person referred to in Paragraph 2 (1) which has not been established to meet needs of an industrial or commercial nature or for research, development or testing purposes.
Register of contracts
(1) A register of contracts is established as an information system for public administration, which serves to publish contracts under this Act.
(2) The registry administrator is the Ministry of the Interior.
(3) The register of contracts is accessible in a way that allows for free remote access.
(4) The registry administrator is not responsible for the correctness of contracts and contracts metadata published through the contract register.
Publication procedure
(1) The publication of a contract through a contract register shall mean the inclusion of an electronic image of the text content of the contract in an open and machine-readable format as well as the metadata referred to in paragraph 5 in the contract register.
(2) The person referred to in Paragraph 2 (1) or the contracting party to the contract shall send the contract to the administrator of the register of contracts for publication without undue delay, but not later than 30 days after the conclusion of the contract. The registry administrator shall publish the contract through the contract register without delay upon receipt of the contract; the publication of the contract through the register of contracts is generally carried out in an automated manner.
(3) The sending of the contract to the registry administrator shall be made on an electronic form to the data box set up by the registry administrator for this purpose. The registry administrator shall publish an electronic form on the public administration portal.
(4) Where a contract is published through a contract register, the registry administrator shall confirm the publication by a confirmation sent to the data box from which the contract was sent to the contract register; the sending of the certificate shall normally be carried out in an automated manner. The registry administrator shall indicate in the certificate the metadata of the contract referred to in paragraph 5 and shall ensure the confirmation in a way that ensures integrity and, where appropriate, the origin of the data.
(5) A contract which has not been published in the manner referred to in paragraph 1 or whose metadata do not contain:
(a) the identification of the Contracting Parties;
(b) the definition of the subject-matter of the contract;
(c) the price and, if the contract does not contain it, the value of the subject-matter of the contract, if it can be determined,
(d) the date of conclusion of the contract;
is not considered to be published through the contract register.
(6) Metadata referred to in points (a) or (c) of paragraph 5 may be excluded from publication through the contract register if such metadata is the business secret of the person referred to in Article 2 (1) (e), (k), (l), (m) or (n), even if the commercial secret would be up to more information published at the same time.
(7) The person referred to in Paragraph 2 (1) or the contracting party to the contract may correct the contract published or the metadata of the contract after publication; acting mutatis mutandis in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 4. The original contract or metadata shall remain in the contract register.
(8) In the event that information is to be excluded from the publication in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 3 (1) or Article 5 (6), the information shall be polluted in the electronic picture of the text content of the contract sent to the registry administrator by the person who sent the contract of publication via the contract register.
Consequences of publication
(1) A contract subject to an obligation of publication through a register of contracts shall take effect at the earliest on the date of publication.
(2) Independent of publication through the register of contracts, a contract that has been concluded in an extreme emergency or for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating injury imminent immediately in the context of an emergency affecting life, health, property or the environment takes effect.
(3) Independent of publication through the register of contracts, a contract involving medicinal products or medical devices is also effective.
Repeal of contract
(1) Where a contract which is subject to an obligation of publication through a register of contracts has not been published through a register of contracts, it is valid, within three months of the date on which it was concluded, to cancel it from the outset.
(2) Paragraph 1 shall not apply where only part of the contract has not been published through the contract register or has been wrongly excluded from the publication of a metadata for reasons of commercial secrecy in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 5 (6),
(a) if the person referred to in Article 2 (1) or another Contracting Party makes a correction pursuant to Article 5 (7), to be made public in accordance with that law, within 30 days of the date on which he became aware that publication was not in conformity with that law, if it was still in good faith that publication was in conformity with that law; or
(b) where the person referred to in Article 2 (1) or another Contracting Party publishes the non-published part of the contract or the metadata concerned by means of the contract register as a correction pursuant to Article 5 (7) within 30 days from the date on which the decision of the superior authority or court was served on the basis of which the non-published part of the contract or the metadata concerned are to be provided in accordance with the rules governing free access to information.
(3) Furthermore, paragraph 1 shall not apply where a contract for which a legal person referred to in Article 2 (1) (k) or (n) is in good faith that he fulfils the conditions laid down in Article 3 (2) (r) has not been published through the contract register. Where a legal person referred to in Article 2 (1) (k) or (n) has been informed that the non-disclosure of a contract under the first sentence is not in conformity with this law and if the contract is not published through the contract register within 30 days, it shall be cancelled from the outset.
(4) Metadata other than those referred to in paragraph 2 may only be corrected within three months of the date of conclusion of the contract to which the metadata relate; This does not apply to correcting errors in writing or numbers.
Common and transitional provisions
(1) This law shall apply regardless of the law applicable under private international law to the contract.
(2) A contract which is subject to an obligation of publication through a register of contracts must be concluded in writing or by other means enabling the contract to be published through a register of contracts.
(3) Where a contract which is subject to an obligation of publication through a register of contracts has been concluded before the date of entry into force of this law and after the entry into force of this law an agreement supplementing, amending, replacing or revoking such a contract has been concluded, the contract in question shall be published through the register of contracts, together with this agreement.
(4) If a contract to be published under the Public Procurement Act is published in accordance with this Act, the obligation to publish it under the Public Procurement Act is fulfilled; This applies mutatis mutandis to data published as metadata under this Act.
(5) If a contract to be published under another law or information to be published under another law is published in accordance with this law, the obligation to publish it or the information to be published under such another law is fulfilled; This applies mutatis mutandis to data published as metadata under this Act. For the purposes of the first sentence, another law means:
(a) the law on the budgetary rules of the territorial budgets, if it is a contract to be published pursuant to Article 10d thereof;
(b) the Act on the promotion of research, experimental development and innovation, if it is a contract for which information is to be made publicly available through the information system of research, development and innovation;
(c) a concession law, if it is a contract for which the information is to be made publicly available through a register of concession contracts.
(6) The performance of obligations under this Act shall not be subject to supervision or control carried out under the laws on territorial units.
Final provision
Paragraph 6 and 7 shall apply for the first time to contracts concluded on 1 July 2017.
Efficacy
This Law shall enter into force on 1 July 2016, with the exception of Sections 6 and 7, which shall take effect on 1 July 2017. ';
5. If the Constitutional Court does not find the law as a whole to be unconstitutional, the appellant requires the annulment of § 2 (1) (b) of the Act on the Register of Contracts, § 2 (1) (k) of the Act on the Register of Contracts, in the words "or national undertaking ', § 2 (1) (n) of the Act on the Register of Contracts and § 8 (3) of the Act on the Register of Contracts.
Arguments of the appellant
The unconstitutionality of the entire contract register law
6. The appellant is of the opinion that the Act on the Register of Contracts interferes with the right of certain operators concerned to do business under Article 26 (1) of the Charter. The appellant considers as such the entities concerned the national undertakings under § 2 (1) (k) of the contract register, the local authorities under § 2 (1) (b) of the contract register law, where, in addition to their legally defined activity, carried out in a separate or delegated capacity, the undertakings and the legal entities defined in § 2 (1) (n) of the contract register, that is to say, the legal entity in which the State or the local authority itself has majority shareholding, including through another legal entity. The appellant is convinced that the parties concerned are beneficiaries of the right to do business [these are entrepreneurs pursuant to § 420 of Act No. 89 / 2012 Coll., Civil Code, (hereinafter "o. z.")], which he is detailed in.
7. Following the judgment of the Constitutional Court of the parties to the right to take part in [finding sp. zn. IV. ÚS 27 / 09 of 11.9.2009 (N 200 / 54 SbNU 489), which is available to the public, as well as other decisions of the Constitutional Court, on the website http: / / nalus.ujud.cz /], the principle of proportionality, which is inextricably linked to the principle of material rule [finding sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 29 / 08 of 21.4.2009 (N 89 / 53 SbNU 125; 181 / 2009 Sb.)], and the prohibition of arbitrary [finding sp. The appellant also points out that, although the exercise of the right to do business is limited under Article 41 (1) of the Charter, the legislator, when defining the specific content and manner of implementation of that right, is limited by its very nature and purpose [cf.
8. The appellant (arguing with the case-law of the Constitutional Court) concludes that the legislation contained in the Law on the Register of Contracts will not stand up to the test of rationality (or rationality), as it constitutes an intervention in the implementation of the essential content of the right to conduct business, which must therefore be regarded as unconstitutional. That intervention is seen by the appellant in the fact that the contested legislation obliges the parties concerned to disclose information which constitutes a competitive advantage for them or their contractual partners and which is essential for the exercise of their right to engage in business in secret from other entrepreneurs. It considers that if the parties concerned are forced to "uncover the cards," they will lose their competitive advantage and threaten their business relations as well, as their trading partners will be reluctant to enter into contractual relations with them in order to protect their own trading conditions; In addition, the appellant refers to the "Study of Commercial and Economic Risks and Impact of Act No. 340 / 2015 Coll., on the Register of Contracts" drawn up by "Deloitte" (under this common designation is meant by one or more "member companies Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, established under the law of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland") [the "Study"].
9. The appellant argues that the legislation contained in Act No. 106 / 1999 Coll., on Freedom of Access to Information, as amended, is sufficient to achieve the legislative objective of transparency of public-law contracts (hereinafter referred to as the "Freedom of Access to Information Act"). Therefore, the Act on the register of contracts is, in this respect, superfluous or duplicate.
10. The applicant also objects to the heading of the entities concerned subject to the obligation to register contracts. It does not agree to include a national undertaking; According to the appellant, it is a normal competitor in a particular market segment and its position is adversely affected by the law on the register of contracts. A similar conclusion is also made by the appellant in relation to the entities referred to in § 2 (1) (b) and (n) of the Act on the Register of Contracts which are alleged to be engaged in a normal business activity with the aim of making the highest possible profit. The appellant concludes that the law on the register of contracts creates inequality between these "public 'and the remaining" private' entrepreneurs.
11. Last but not least, with reference to the study, the appellant submits a comprehensive argument in favour of its conclusion that the law on the register of contracts is not a reasonable means of achieving the stated objectives because it does not provide sufficient safeguards to protect data the confidentiality of which is essential for the parties (industrial property rights, business secrets, knowhow etc.).
12. The applicant also undergoes the law on the register of contracts and the proportionality test. The appellant does not consider the objectives pursued by the legislature to be legitimate or the contested legislation as appropriate. Such a conclusion is based on the claim that additional information obligations imposed on entities whose primary objective is to obtain profits will lead to a decrease in profits (here the appellant relies on the conclusions of the Study), and any unfair conduct is not alone an obligation to publish selected contracts to prevent it. The appellant also believes that the law on the register of contracts does not anchor sufficient mechanisms to ensure that the register of contracts itself is up-to-date and credible. The appellant reiterates that, in order to achieve the legislature's objectives, the Act on Freedom of Access to Information and the regulation contained in other legislation laying down the obligations of bodies active in areas affecting public interests is sufficient for a large part; The contested legislation is thus redundant. From the point of view of the mutual relationship between the interest in achieving the objectives set and the right to do business, the appellant considers that, at the existing level of regulation in this area, the interest in further extending the regulation is not given, or the interest is not so urgent as to compensate for interference with the fundamental right to business. Last but not least, the appellant also recalls the drasticity of sanctions for failure to comply with the obligation to publish the contracts in the contract register in the form of "cancellation from the outset '.
13. The appellant also undergoes both the contested legislation and the test of equality, concluding, in the light of the conclusions of the Constitutional Court's decision-making practice [e.g. the Sp. zn. Thus, the contested legislation does not stand up to the equality test, and as a manifestation of the legislature's insolence, it finds itself outside the limits of constitutionality.
14. The applicant therefore concludes that the Law on the Register of Contracts infringes the right of the operators concerned to do business under Article 26 (1) of the Charter. In addition to its constitutional legal argument, the appellant also points out that the competition rules, from which it makes clear that the parties concerned under § 2 (1) (k) and (n) of the Treaty Register Act constitute ordinary competitors who are allegedly disadvantaged against their competition by the obligations to disclose facts which other competitors do not have to publish. The appellant finds it contrary to the general principle of non-discrimination and fair competition.
15. From the point of view of Union law, the appellant is convinced that the Treaty Register Act is contrary to the rules of free trade within the meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Although the contested legislation does not have the character of an advantage to certain undertakings or sectors, its actual effects can be placed under the prohibition of such an advantage [here the appellant refers to the opinion of the first Vice-President of the Office for Competition, JUDr. Hynek Brom, of 29 March 2016 ("the Opinion ')].
16. The appellant also points out the link between Article 3 (1) of the Treaty Register Act and Article 2 of the Freedom of Access to Information Act, which sets out the scope of the compulsory bodies and defines the information which is not covered by the obligation to provide them under the Freedom of Information Act. According to the appellant, the bodies under § 2 (1) (k) and (n) of the Act on the Register of Contracts cannot be regarded as public institutions under § 2 (1) of the Act on Free Access to Information, which means that these "must also be excluded from the publication obligation 'under the Act on the Register of Contracts.
17. Moreover, according to the appellant, the contested legislation interferes with the principle of the autonomy of the will and the principle of contractual freedom. Paragraph 6 (1) of the Act on the Register of Contracts links the effectiveness of the contracts in question to their publication in the Register, thereby excluding the possibility for the parties to negotiate another (e.g. retroactive) effectiveness of the contract. However, in the appellant's view, such a procedure is quite common and guarantees the necessary flexibility. The appellant [referring to the finding of page I. ÚS 557 / 05 of 24.7.2007 (N 116 / 46 SbNU 99)] also states that there is no public interest in intervening in the principle of the autonomy of the will. In relation to that appellant, the rule contained in Section 7 (1) of the Law on the Register of Contracts concerning the cancellation of the contracts in question shall also be contradicted by the appellant if they are not published in the Register within three months of their conclusion, from the outset. It states that such an adjustment constitutes an ultima ratio, the final solution for which it finds no reasons for using.
18. The appellant also objects to Paragraph 8 (1) of the Act on the Register of Contracts, arguing that it is common in business practice that individual contracts are governed by other than Czech law. As a result of the application of Section 7 (1) of the Act on the Register of Contracts, there may therefore be cases where one and the same contract will not be valid under Czech law, but it will be valid under foreign law, thereby exposing domestic stakeholders to uncertainty about their rights and obligations under such a contract (here the author refers to the above mentioned Study). This is said to be a major threat to domestic stakeholders at the risk of litigation abroad for any breach of their obligations under an absolutely invalid contract, or to the risk of their business in relation to abroad.
19. The appellant is also convinced that Paragraph 8 (3) of the Treaty Register Act constitutes an inadmissible genuine retroactivity. According to the appellant, this is because, as a result of the application of § 7 of Act No. 340 / 2015 Coll., as amended by Act No. 249 / 2017 Coll., the contracts concluded long before their effectiveness are cancelled, and this result is due to a period when the parties to the contract could not expect and could not even choose the content of the contracts in question to meet the future requirements of the Act. In addition, the appellant considers that the condition for the publication of a contract in cases covered by Section 8 (3) of the Treaty Registry Act will also affect older contracts, which have already been effective in themselves before the law is effective, but newly - in connection with Section 6 (1) of the Treaty Register - their effectiveness will be conditional on publication in the contract register. As a result, the appellant sees a modification of the legal consequences based on previous legislation and therefore an incorrect retroactivity of which it has doubts about constitutional conformity. In addition to the breach of the principle of the prohibition of retroactivity, the appellant also sees the breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations as described in the law.
20. In conclusion, the author expresses the belief that the proposed repeal of the law will not affect the obligations of the Czech Republic arising from membership of the European Union.
Final proposal and proposal for a preliminary hearing
21. For these reasons, the appellant proposes that the Constitutional Court should act in such a way that the Law on the Register of Contracts is repealed on the date of the declaration of the Constitutional Court's finding in the Collection of Laws. In the event that the Constitutional Court does not find the law on the register of contracts as a whole to be unconstitutional, it proposes that its provisions be abolished by § 2 (1) (b), § 2 (1) (k), in the words "or national undertaking ', § 2 (1) (n) and § 8 (3), which it considers most problematic.
22. The proposal that the Constitutional Court should act on the urgency of the case pursuant to Article 39 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., according to the appellant, is justified by the effects associated with Sections 6 and 7 of the Act on the Register of Contracts. In the case of contracts which are the subject of the sale of fast-moving goods, they are said to normally take place before such contracts are published in the register. In other words, in such a case it is implemented under an ineffective contract. If the contract is not published in the register in order to protect the business secrets of a foreign contract partner, the applicant considers that the contract is invalid from the outset and that its parties are obliged to return their possible transactions to each other. The appellant considers both consequences undesirable and sees their resolution in the speedy repeal of the law on the register of contracts or, where appropriate, its partial provisions by the Constitutional Court.
Observations of the parties and the intervener
23. Pursuant to Articles 42 (4) and 69 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, the Constitutional Court sent a motion for the initiation of proceedings to the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, the Government and the Ombudsman. At the same time, the Constitutional Court published the proposal on its website (see https: / / www.ujude.cz / negotiated-plenarni-veci /).
Statement by the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
24. The Chamber of Deputies, through its Chairman Mgr. Radek Vondráček, limited itself to a summary of the course of the legislative process resulting in the adoption of the Act on the Register of Contracts, as well as its two amendments made by Act No. 298 / 2016 Coll., which amends certain laws in connection with the adoption of the Act on Trust Services for Electronic Transactions, Act No. 106 / 1999 Coll., on Free Access to Information, as amended, and Act No. 121 / 2000 Coll., on the Law on Copyright Law, on Rights Related to Copyright and on the Register of Contracts (Act on the Register of Contracts), as amended, and Act No. 249 / 2017 Coll.
Statement by the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic
25. The Senate expressed its views on the invitation of the Constitutional Court through its President Milan Štěch's letter of 6 December 2017. The President of the Senate stated that, during the general debate on the draft law on the register of contracts, proposals for its approval and rejection were made. Finally, the draft law on the register of treaties was returned to the Chamber of Deputies, as amended by the amendments, with the Senate adopting accompanying resolution 256, stating that the draft law may contain a number of unforeseen risks arising from a possible conflict of the market environment and competition, together with the obligations imposed on the legal entities concerned. In the case of Bill No. 249 / 2017 Coll., the general debate made proposals to reject and approve the draft, but the Senate did not adopt a resolution on the draft law within the deadline.
Government observations
The alleged unconstitutionality of the entire law on the register of contracts, in event of its selected provisions
26. In its observations of 5 January 2018, the Government stated at the outset that the proposal was against the largely ineffective version of the Act on the Register of Contracts. It is clear from the appellant's argument that it does not reflect the amendment of the contract register law implemented by Act No. 249 / 2017 Coll. (hereinafter referred to as "the amendment to the Act on the Register of Contracts'), and therefore, in the petition itself, it proposes the repeal of the already ineffective provisions of the law. For this reason, the Government expresses doubts as to the substance of the proposal and considers that the Constitutional Court should reject the proposal as manifestly unfounded.
27. Even in the case of the substantive character of the proposal, the Government believes that the proposal is not justified, inter alia because the amendment to the Treaty Register Act has removed a number of its possible negative effects against which the appellant is opposed in the direction the appellant considers desirable [the Government refers to Article 3 (2) (r) of the Treaty Register Act].
28. The party to the alleged infringement of the law on the register of contracts with the right to do business stated that the appellant failed to reflect the fact that the right to do business (or to intervene in it), which underlies the rationality test and subsequently the proportionality test, is among the economic, social and cultural rights included in the title of the fourth Charter. The nature of these rights is, according to the Government, to be examined in the context of the existing case-law of the Constitutional Court, in particular its findings sp. zn. As regards the definition of the essential content of the right to do business, the Government states that the Constitutional Court has formulated, in its finding, sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 5 / 15, and it is clear that the Act on the Register of Contracts, mainly implementing the right to information under Article 17 (1) and (5) of the Charter, does not effectively aim at the right to do business. The appellant's contention that the law of the register of contracts inadvertently interferes with the right to engage in business, as a result of which the parties concerned are forced to change their business plans and activities, is considered incorrect by the Government. It contends that the appellant does not state how specifically the publication of the contracts in question should lead to an impossibility or significant reduction in profits bordering existential problems. The Act on the Register of Contracts, according to the Government, allows - and also in its earlier version - the non-disclosure of those parts of contracts which are "commercially sensitive 'and newly allows the non-publication of contracts relating to the ordinary course of trade of the selected entities concerned. At the same time, the Act on the Register of Contracts contains a number of exceptions to the publication obligation, which also affects the Institute of Commercial Secrets. The appellant's argument regarding the protection of the contractors of the entities concerned is not considered convincing by the Government. They claim that the position of the operators concerned is different from that of other business entities, given their link to public budgets or the State's or local authorities' ownership. According to the Government, regulation of their business position, including information obligations, is also related to this.
29. The Government also points to the findings of sp. zn. IV. ÚS 1146 / 16 of 20.6.2017 (N 101 / 85 SbNU 679) and sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 31 / 03 of 11.2.2004 (N 16 / 32 SbNU 143; 105 / 2004 Coll.)]. If it follows from the first of the above findings of the Constitutional Court that a commercial company is not a public institution within the meaning of Article 2 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act, this does not mean that, under another law, an information obligation cannot be imposed on such a body that it would otherwise not have been required under the Freedom of Information Act. The Government considers that the appellant of the finding, sp. zn. IV. In addition, the legality of the stated objectives is supported by the consistency of the Law on the Register of Contracts with the Law on Free Access to Information, especially in relation to the current decision-making practice of the Constitutional Court limiting the scope of compulsory bodies under the Law on Free Access to Information. With regard to public undertakings and national undertakings, the Government considers the contested scheme to be entirely legitimate. The objectives of the Treaty Registry Act - transparency of contracts and proper management of public funds - are therefore found by the government to be legitimate.
30. As regards the rationality of the chosen device in relation to the achievement of the stated objective, the Government considers that the management of public funds and public property must be subject not only to private and incident checks, but also to (wider) public controls. The appellant's conviction that public control may be carried out under the Freedom of Information Act, the Government considers that it is wrong and points to difficulties in obtaining information under the Freedom of Information Act; These difficulties rather discourage the public from controlling the management of public funds and property. This is why the government considers that the effort to create mechanisms for public implementation not only controls reasonable but also necessary (regardless of the benefits of the information system allowing remote access, which is the register of contracts). As regards the protection of industrial property, commercial secrecy and know-how, the Government refers to Section 3 (1) of the Law on the Register of Contracts in custody to Section 2 (3) of the Freedom of Information Act and to Section 3 (2) (r) of the Law on the Register of Contracts.
31. As regards the appellant of the proportionality test carried out (the implementation of which he considers to be unfounded in the light of the above conclusions), the Government contends that the contested legislation is not duplicated, since according to Article 5 (2) (b) of Act No. 106 / 1999 Coll., on free access to information, as amended by Act No. 61 / 2006 Coll., only draft licensing agreements are available without request. If there is a penalty linked to the non-publication of the contract in question, the Government underlines the deterrent nature of such a penalty. At the same time, it recalls that the non-disclosure of part of the contract may be in accordance with the law or not, and then the procedure laid down in Section 7 (2) of the contract register is appropriate. As regards the third step of the proportionality test, the Government states that the leniency of the contested legislation in relation to the fundamental rights in question is evident from the number of exceptions to the obligation of publication and exemptions from the application of the penalty pursuant to § 7 (1) of Act No. 340 / 2015 Coll., as amended by Act No. 249 / 2017 Coll., as well as from the postponement of the effectiveness of the law itself and the effectiveness of Article 6 and Article 7 thereof. In view of the last step of the proportionality test, the Government adds that the positive effects resulting from the adoption of the contested legislation outweigh any negative effects resulting from the restrictions on the fundamental rights concerned (which in addition reduces the set of legal exceptions and the association of the Law on the Register of Contracts with the Freedom of Access to Information Act). To illustrate this, the government adds that publishing contracts in the register has contributed to creating a public debate about cheap mobile tariffs for the public sector or about health benefits.
32. The Government also refers to the objection to the alleged restriction of competition by imposing additional obligations on the parties concerned. It refers to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the interpretation of Article 107 (1) TFEU, on the basis of which it considers that there is no unlawful State aid within the meaning of that Article in the present case, since the legal provisions do not in any way burden public budgets in the material sense. Similarly, the Government does not accept a reservation concerning a breach of the principle of equality. In the present case, it cannot be said that there is an inequality of accesoric, since the reason for the distinction is that a particular entity is linked to public budgets or manages public funds, does not fall under the concept of "other status' within the meaning of Article 3 (1) of the Charter and Article 14 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (" the Convention '); On this point, the Government points to the conclusions of the finding, sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 18 / 15. In the case of inequality, the Government considers that there is no distinction on the basis of the legislator's approval, which is also given in the rationality test carried out. The Government also states that Article 14 of the Convention, which is only applicable in conjunction with other provisions of the Convention, or with other human rights and fundamental freedoms, does not apply to the case. Also viewed by the Optics of Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Government believes that the contested legislation distinguishes on reasonable and objective grounds and therefore does not contradict the right to equal treatment. In the light of the principle of the autonomy of the will and the principle of the contractual freedom, the Government [referring to the finding of the sp. zn.
33. As regards the alleged breach of the retroactivity ban, the Government is convinced that the appellant's considerations are wrong in this respect, which it draws from the interpretation of § 9 in conjunction with § 6 and 7 of Act No. 340 / 2015 Coll., as amended by Act No. 249 / 2017 Coll., which states that the consequences associated with the non-publication of the contracts in question arise only in relation to contracts concluded from 1 July 2017. For this reason, according to the Government, it cannot be a genuine or false retroactivity as defined by the sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 18 / 14 of 15.9.2015 (N 165 / 78 SbNU 469; 299 / 2015 Sb.), but a retrospective, constitutionally conformal adjustment. The related requirement for publication of the original contract (pursuant to Section 8 (3) of the contract register) also corresponds to the meaning and purpose of the contract register law; otherwise the publication of only an agreement which further regulates such a contract would make no sense - it would only provide incomplete and useless information.
34. In conclusion, the Government commented on the Study annexed to the Constitutional Complaints, which it refers to as rather a poll in terms of assessing the views of the selected bodies affected by the Act, which indicated what difficulties they expected in the application of the Law on the Register of Contracts, after which it was assessed what the risk for the entities concerned is if they were to arise. According to the Government, the Study is therefore not applicable, nor does it take into account the core amendment to the Act on the Register of Contracts. Similarly, the government is opposed to the above-mentioned opinion.
Final Government proposal
35. For the reasons set out above, the Government has proposed that the Constitutional Court reject or reject the application.
Communication from the Public Rights Security Agency
36. The Ombudsman, by letter dated 21 November 2017, informed the Ombudsman that it did not exercise its right under Article 69 (3) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, and did not intervene.
Expression of the State Reconstruction Platform
37. The Constitutional Court sent unsolicited observations on the proposal under examination on 5 June 2018 - via the Frank Bold Society, p. - and according to its words as "amicus curiae" - a national reconstruction platform ("Platform"). It can be noted that information on the Platform is available on the website: https: / / www.rekonstructionstation.cz / en? gcled = EAIAIQobChMIyflN9rvF3wivl-R3Ch3SmA3MEAYASAAEGLOp _ D _ BWE. The Platform states that it was one of the bodies involved in the final version of the Act on the Register of Contracts and thus feels the need to respond to the Constitutional Court's proposal.
38. The Platform draws attention to the constitutional basis of the Law on the Register of Contracts, which develops a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of information within the meaning of Article 17 of the Charter and Article 10 of the Convention and deepens the features of a democratic rule of law in which the public (but also control) participates. In this respect, the Platform points out the link between the Law on the Register of Contracts and the Law on Freedom of Access to Information, as well as the similarity of the objectives for which the regulations are intended to be implemented, thereby importing the constitutional conformity of the contested law.
39. The Platform concludes that the Act on the Register of Contracts expands the currently closely absorbed active component of the right to information. It further states that the very scope of the information that is disclosed by the parties concerned only affects a certain range of contracts and basic information on them (metadata), with a number of legal exceptions; The scope of the information provided under the contract register law is therefore significantly limited compared to the scope of the information provided under the Freedom of Information Act.
40. At the end of its observations, the Platform mentions certain cases of application practice which prove the relevance of the contested legislation (purchase of medicines and medical supplies by public hospitals, back-up bonuses provided when buying medical products, coverage of suppliers' links to policy or sponsor parties).
41. The Constitutional Court notes that the arguments contained in the Platform's observations are largely identical to those of the Government.
Replication of the appellant
42. The Constitutional Court sent the appellant observations of the parties to the proceedings and observations of the Platform on a possible reply, the appellant made use of that possibility and sent its replies to the Constitutional Court on 20 March 2018 and 13 July 2018.
43. First of all, the applicant submits that it considers the proposal to be negotiable, since Sections 2 (1) (b), (k) and (n) and 8 (3) of the Treaty Register Act were not affected by the amendment of the Act. At the same time, the appellant believes that the proposal cannot be rejected even because of its apparent unfounded nature, since the intervention which the contested legislation constitutes (in particular, if there is a breach of the prohibition of retroactivity) continues after the amendment. On the substance of the case, the appellant is of the opinion that the amendment in question has not been able to remove the alleged unconstitutionality of the contested legal provisions. The appellant also maintains its claim that the contested legislation is essentially duplicate and therefore superfluous.
44. Following the argument of the government of the parties to the limits in which rights can be claimed, the appellant stresses that the law on the register of contracts actually limits entrepreneurs to the possibilities of making profits, or forces them to change the way in which they conduct their business, in some cases even retroactively. The appellant further advocates its argument that the Act on the Register of Contracts is superfluous in view of the existence of a Freedom of Information Act. As regards the Government's claim on the legitimacy of the Treaty Register Act, the appellant recalls that it also concludes that the Treaty Register Act does not make any distinction between the entities involved in the business activity and which do not develop it, although the other group is affected significantly more negatively by the real effects of the Treaty Register Act. In addition, the appellant recalls the already mentioned negative consequences of the Act on the Register of Commercial Secrets Contracts, the publication of contracts concluded before the Act on the Register of Contracts, as a result of their subsequent amendments, additions or cancellation, as well as the retroactive effects of Section 8 (3) of the Act on the Register of Contracts, which it believes also affect contracts concluded before 1 July 2017. The appellant contends that, in its proposal, there is no particular example of an entity that would be directly threatened in its existence as a result of the application of the law on the register of contracts, the appellant argues that such an example is not necessary to assess the constitutional conformity of the contested law, since the illegality is an objective category.
45. In relation to the observations of the Platform, the appellant, in reply, argues that the Platform is not entitled, either through the Frank Bold Society, respectively, to take any action in this proceeding and the Constitutional Court should reject its observations.
Oral proceedings
46. The Constitutional Court found that further clarification of the case could not be expected from oral proceedings and therefore, in accordance with Article 44 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, it decided on the case without its regulation.
Self-examination of the contested legal provisions
Terms and conditions of the formal assessment of the proposal and of the proposal for a prior discussion
47. The Constitutional Court concludes that it is competent to consider an application for annulment of the contested provisions. This application complies with all the Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, with the formal requirements laid down and was submitted by the authorised appellant. As regards the Government's objection that the proposal does not reflect the amendments made in particular by Act No. 249 / 2017 Coll., the Constitutional Court notes that, in view of the content of the appellant's objections, it is clear that this brojí is against the valid and effective version of the Act on the Register of Contracts, i.e. as amended by Act No. 298 / 2016 Coll. and Act No. 249 / 2017 Coll. However, even if the Constitutional Court were to conclude that the proposal goes against the text of the law which, prior to its delivery to the Constitutional Court, had undergone partial amendments, given the content and meaning of the two amendments marked, they did not bring about a substantial amendment of the law within the meaning of the order of the Constitutional Court sp. v. Pl. ÚS 35 / 2000 of 26.9.2000 (U 33 / 19 SbNU 297).
48. By Act No 298 / 2016 Coll. only a partial amendment of § 5 (4) of the Act on the Register of Contracts, in which the original words were "marked by their recognized electronic mark and stamped by qualified time stamp" was replaced by the words "ensuring integrity and, where appropriate, the origin of the data." The same applies to almost all amendments made by Act No. 249 / 2017 Coll., which concerned the classification of § 3 (2) (c) of the Act (for the words "criminal offences" the words "or the activities of the Administration of State Reserves in the procurement and management of state tangible reserves"), § 3 (2) (e) of the Act (for the words "§ 2 (1) (e), (l)" was inserted "m)"], § 3 (2) of the Act, to which the new letters (m) to (r) were added to the words "have been entered" in the law, "(k)," (l) "inserted" in Article 2 (1) "
49. The Constitutional Court notes, first of all, that the provisions which the appellant seeks to abolish in event were not affected at all by those amendments to the Act on the Register of Contracts. As regards the partial amendment made by Act No. 298 / 2016 Coll., this does not change its substance from the point of view of the appellant's argument against the purpose of the law itself on the register of contracts. In the case of amendments made by Act No. 249 / 2017 Coll., the introduction of a new exemption from the publication obligation laid down in § 3 (2) (r) of the Act on the Register of Contracts and the follow-up of the Act on the Register of Contracts in § 7 (3) of the Act on the Register of Contracts should be identified as crucial. Although, in the light of this new exception, certain reservations made by the appellant regarding the status of the parties concerned under § 3 (1) (k) and (n) of the Act on the Register of Contracts have lapsed, the Constitutional Court considers that the establishment of these new rules does not bring about the substantial amendment of the Act on the Register of Contracts. This is because, although the amendment in question excluded from the obligation to publish a partial (but very large) range of contracts in question, the appellant did not specifically take into account the fact that they were included in the contracts which were required to be published (or referred to only in relation to its further objection to the protection of business secrets). Nor does that conclusion alter the fact that, in its reply, the appellant subsequently responded to the provision in question and disputed the interpretation contained in the concept of "ordinary trade '.
50. The Constitutional Court therefore considers that the conditions for a substantive examination of the application are met.
51. The appellant asked the Constitutional Court to take a decision on the urgency of the case under Article 39 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., which was justified by the fact that, in the case of certain contracts subject to the obligation to publish in the Register, the parties to the case would be in danger of obtaining the performance before they were published and thus on the basis of an ineffective contract. Furthermore, according to the appellant, in situations where the contract is not published for the purpose of protecting the business secrets of a foreign contract partner, such a contract is invalid from the outset and its parties are obliged to return their eventual transactions to each other. The appellant considers the consequences to be undesirable.
52. The Constitutional Court finds such a justification for the request for a hearing of a general nature, and considers, moreover, that the risks referred to by the appellant do not arise from the contested law (as they are more detailed).
53. In addition, the Constitutional Court adds that in the course of the proceedings it was informed by the President of the Czech Pirate Party, Mgr. et Mgr. Jakub Michalek, that two committees of the Chamber of Deputies have currently suspended the hearing of House Press No. 50, which concerns, inter alia, another amendment to the Act on the Register of Contracts. The Constitutional Court therefore, although it did not find the appellant's proposal to be justified, took the view of the application within the earliest possible time, which was appropriate to the complexity of the matter.
54. The Constitutional Court considers it appropriate to address the issue set out by the appellant in its reply to the statement of the Platform, namely the absence of the establishment of the Amicus curiae Institute in the Czech legal order. The Constitutional Court recalls that unsolicited observations from entities other than the parties or interveners are repeatedly found in the practice of the Constitutional Court. Already in the proceedings concerning the proposals of the groups of Members and Senators to abolish part of Act No. 261 / 2007 Coll., on the stabilisation of public budgets (its tax section) [see the find sp. zn. The same was also the case in a number of other cases [cf. the findings of the Constitutional Court sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 3 / 16 of 10.7.2018 (186 / 2018 Coll.), sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 19 / 14 of 27.1.2015 (N 16 / 76 SbNU 231; 97 / 2015 Sb.), sp. zn. Pl. Pl. ÚS 16 / 14 of 27.1.2015 (N 15 / 76 SbNU 197; 99 / 2015 Sb.) or sp. Pl. ÚS 3 / 15 of 30.5.2017 (N 89 / 85 SbNU 503; 231 / 2017 Sb.), and the Constitutional Court of such observations, even submitted by another legal representative, simply does not take into account [the Constitutional Court's decision practice].
Assessment of the competence and constitutional conformity of the legislative process
55. Pursuant to Article 68 (2) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48 / 2002 Coll., the Constitutional Court must examine whether the contested provisions have been adopted and issued within the limits of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, in a constitutionally prescribed manner, and whether their content complies with constitutional laws. The Constitutional Court has therefore verified the progress of the process of adopting these laws. It was based on the observations submitted by the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, as well as on publicly available electronic sources (stenograms from meetings of both chambers of Parliament, resolutions and House and Senate, freely available on the website http: / / www.psp.cz and http: / / www.senat.cz /).
56. The draft Act on the Register of Treaties (Chamber of Deputies, 7th Election, 2013- 2017, House Press No. 42 / 0) was distributed to Members on 4 December 2013. The Chamber of Deputies approved the bill at the third reading on 18 September 2015 at its 31st meeting (Resolution No 880), with 116 out of 157 Members voting for it, 7 opposed and 34 abstained. The Senate discussed the bill (Senate, 10th term, 2014-2016, Senate Press No. 126 / 0) at its 13th meeting on 22 October 2015 and returned it to the Chamber of Deputies with amendments (Resolution No. 255). 48 senators voted against and 6 senators voted against and 4 senators abstained. On the same day and at the same meeting, the Senate approved accompanying resolution 256. On 24 November 2015, at its 36th meeting, the Chamber of Deputies remained on the originally approved text of the Bill (Resolution No 960). 110 of the 161 Members present voted in favour, 26 opposed and 25 abstained. The draft law adopted was delivered to the President of the Republic on 27 November 2015 and was subsequently signed by him. It was published in the Collection of Laws on 14 December 2015 in the amount of 144 under the number 340 / 2015 Coll.
57. The draft law amending certain laws in connection with the adoption of the law on trust services for electronic transactions, Act No. 106 / 1999 Coll., on free access to information, as amended, and Act No. 121 / 2000 Coll., on copyright law, on copyright rights and on the amendment of certain laws (Copyright Act), as amended, (Chamber of Deputies, 7th Election, 2013- 2017, House Press No. 764 / 0) was circulated to Members on 31 March 2016. The Chamber of Deputies approved the bill at the third reading on 29 June 2016 at its 48th meeting (resolution 1270), when 126 of the 162 Members present voted for it, 16 opposed and 20 abstained. The Senate discussed the bill (Senate, 10th term, 2014- 2016, Senate Press No. 307 / 0) at its 27th meeting on 24 August 2016 and approved it (Resolution No 512). 37 senators voted in favour, 11 senators abstained. The draft law adopted was delivered to the President of the Republic on 31 August 2016 and was subsequently signed by the President. It was published in the Collection of Laws on 19 September 2016 in an amount of 115 under No. 298 / 2016 Coll.
58. The draft law amending Act No. 340 / 2015 Coll., on the Specific Conditions for the Efficiency of Certain Contracts, the Publication of These Contracts and the Register of Contracts (Act on the Register of Contracts), as amended by Act No. 298 / 2016 Coll., (Chamber of Deputies, 7th Election, 2013- 2017, House Press No. 1124 / 0), was circulated to Members on 19 May 2017. The Chamber of Deputies agreed to discuss the bill in such a way that it could agree to it at the first reading (resolution 1718), and subsequently approved the bill at the first reading on 28 June 2017 at its 59th session (resolution 1718), with 128 of the 145 Members present, 13 opposed and 4 abstentions. The Senate has not discussed the draft law within the deadline laid down in Article 46 (1) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (Senate, 11th term of office, 2016- 2018, Senate Press No. 161 / 0), which is why it accepted it (Article 46 (3) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic). The draft law adopted was delivered to the President of the Republic on 27 July 2017 and signed on 1 August 2017. It was published in the Collection of Laws on 18 August 2017 in the amount of 89 under the number 249 / 2017 Coll.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | The Constitutional Court found no 71 / 2019 Coll., on the application for annulment of Act No. 340 / 2015 Coll., on the special conditions for the effectiveness of certain contracts, the publication of these contracts and the register of contracts (Act on the Register of Contracts), as amended |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 14.03.2019 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0