The Constitutional Court found No. 84 / 2003 Coll.

I. Government Decree No. 567 / 2002 Coll., establishing the price moratorium on rent from apartments, is hereby repealed with effect from the date of publication of the finding in the Collection of Laws.

II. The proposal that the Government of the Czech Republic be prohibited from continuing to intervene in rental prices from flats by issuing its own legislation is rejected.

On 27 January 2003, the Constitutional Court received a proposal by a group of 25 senators, led by Jaroslav Kubber, to repeal Government Decree No. 567 / 2002 Coll., setting out the price moratorium on rent from flats, approved by the Government of the Czech Republic at its meeting on 19.12.2002 and published in the Collection of Laws on 20.12.2002, and a proposal for the issue of an interim measure on the basis of which the Constitutional Court should prohibit the Government from continuing to intervene in the area of rent prices from apartments through the publication of its own legislation.

The introduction of this submission draws attention to the fact that the amount of the rent from the apartment was originally adjusted by the Order of the Ministry of Finance No. 176 / 1993 Coll., on the rent from the apartment and the payment for the service provided with the use of the apartment, as amended. This decree was repealed by the Constitutional Court's finding of 21 June 2000 (sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 3 / 2000) on 31 December 2001, giving the Constitutional Court, according to the appellants, sufficient time to establish a new quality regulation. However, the Government did not use this time to draft a constitutional law on rent when it submitted a bill to the Chamber of Deputies which did not respect constitutional order and the quoted findings of the Constitutional Court and which the Chamber of Deputies did not accept. For the remaining nine months, the government did not, in the appellants' opinion, prepare the bill. Subsequently, the Ministry of Finance issued price notice No 01 / 2002 issuing a list of goods with regulated prices; it took effect on 1 January 2002 and the rent was regulated by the maximum price almost in the same way as in the repealed Decree No. 176 / 1993 Coll. On 4 March 2002, the Constitutional Court received a proposal from the Ombudsman to abolish the quoted notice in the section concerning rent and services provided in connection with the lease and on 3 April 2002 a similar proposal from a group of Senators, who in addition proposed the abolition of the provisions of Section 10 of Act No. 526 / 1990 Coll., on prices. The Constitutional Court has brought the two cases together under point Pl ÚS 8 / 02 and ordered the hearing on this matter on 20 November 2002. On 15 November 2002, the Ministry of Finance abolished the contested part of Exposition No 01 / 2002 and issued Exposition No 06 / 2002 amending Exposition No 01 / 2002, thereby trying to avoid the constitutional review of the contested legislation in an unprecedented manner, as the applicants claim. The Constitutional Court annulled the order of the Ministry of Finance No 06 / 2002 and was to state in its decision the third attempt to apply the same rental law by the State and the resulting failure to respect the Constitutional Court's legal opinion in breach of Article 89 (2) of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter the Constitution). The finding in question of 20.11.2002 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 8 / 02 was published on 18.12.2002 in the Collection of Laws under No. 528 / 2002 Coll. and from the time of publication this decision was to become enforceable, i.e. the way in which the rent prices from the apartment were regulated has become ineffective. In this context, on 19 December 2002, the Government approved the contested regulation, which retains the level which the Constitutional Court should have repeatedly declared unconstitutional if it allegedly prohibits price increases above the level in force on 17 December 2002, that is to say, the day before the publication of the quoted finding of Mr Pl. According to the complainants, the Government has committed several violations of constitutional standards by adopting the regulation in question and has ignored the binding decision of the Constitutional Court for the fourth time.

As regards the specific reasons for the unconstitutionality of the contested regulation, the appellants point out, first of all, that it unjustifiably maintained the rent from the flat at the level which the Constitutional Court considered in its finding No 528 / 2002 Coll. as unconstitutional, and that it did not consider it desirable to postpone its enforceability and binding. According to the appellants, it is also binding on the Government to establish the inconstitutionality of rental legislation on 17 December 2002 on grounds of infringement of Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention ') and Articles 4 (3) and (4) and 11 (1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (" the Charter'). In other words, if the government regulates the rent in a way that refers to non-constitutional legislation, this later legislation is also unconstitutional. In the context of this, the applicants point out that, within the meaning of Article 89 (2): The Constitution is not authorised by the legal authorities of the State to regulate social relations in contravention of the finding of the Constitutional Court, or by bodies with legislative powers, it is not entitled to regulate social relations in the same way that has been abolished in the past by the Constitutional Court for its illegality. This rule was not respected by the Government, nor did it respect that the Constitutional Court had recommended the law as a legal form for adjusting the rent from the apartment. In view of the accepted principles of the rule of law, the State is only entitled to do what is entrusted to it by law. The Government has also committed infringement of Article 2 (2) and Article 4 (2) and (4) of the Charter by an unjustified and unjustified regulation of rent in the form of a regulation which, moreover, does not respect Article 89 (2) of the Constitution.

In the view of the appellants of the Decree of the Government No. 567 / 2002 Coll. also does not comply with the provision of § 9 (1) of Act No. 526 / 1990 Coll., on prices (hereinafter referred to as "the Price Act '), according to which the price moratorium must apply to prices relating to the whole groups of goods in question. This is not the case in the present case, since the regulation in question again unjustifiably makes the differences between individual apartments and unjustifiably divides the whole set of rental apartments into a group of rent-controlled apartments and a group of apartments in which the rent is not regulated, and the Constitutional Court has already ruled on the inconstitutionality of this fact. In addition, the Government Regulation does not properly define the scope of the addressees as provided for in Section 3 (2) of the Price Act and as the Constitutional Court ruled in its finding No 528 / 2002 Coll. In addition to the unconstitutional reservations, the appellants further point out that the contested legislation is not capable of regulating social relations, because, pursuant to Article 9 (1) of the Price Act, the price moratorium constitutes a time-limited ban on price increases above the level still in force on the market of the goods in question, which means that they must continue to follow the price level still in force. The Government Decree became valid and effective on 20.12.2002, but since 18.12.2002 (i.e. since the date of publication of the finding 528 / 2002 Coll.) there is no special regulation for the regulation of rent from the apartment. On 20 December 2002, the government was not entitled to reintroduce an invalid and, moreover, an unconstitutional legal regime governing the price of rent from an apartment through a price moratorium. The government has not complied with the legal requirement for continuity of regulated and regulated prices, so the legislation is not only unconstitutional and illegal, but also inefficient and obsolary. Furthermore, the Government did not comply with Paragraph 1 (6) of the Price Law, according to which price formation can only be directed if the market is threatened by the effects of the restriction on competition or requires an exceptional market situation. However, none of these conditions was met. If the reason for the adoption of the contested legislation was to protect tenants against increases in rent on apartments, then in the opinion of the applicants, the current legislation allowed the increase in rent in apartments with regulated rentals to take place only by mutual agreement between the lessor and the lessee or by decision of the court. The aforementioned Government procedure has infringed Articles 2 (2), 4 (2) and 4 (4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

Finally, the appellants point out that the Constitutional Court, in its finding No 528 / 2002 Coll., did not exclude the possibility of using price regulation in the field of rent, but in that case the price must comply with the general provisions of the Price Act. In particular, the cost of use and repair, the return on capital employed, the location and attractiveness of the apartment and the reasonable profit must be taken into account in the price. According to the expert analyses that the government should have had drawn up, it is alleged that on average 2,7% of the replacement purchase price of the apartment is needed per year for the simple reproduction of the housing fund, while the regulated rent represents only about 1 - 1,3% of the replacement purchase price of the apartment according to the same analysis. For example, the Polish Constitutional Court in October 2002 was to decide on the right of the lessors to increase the rent to 3% of the replacement cost of the apartment. According to the applicants, price regulation is exceptional and acceptable only under strictly limited conditions, respecting the structure of the regulated price, which includes both legitimate costs and reasonable (normal) profit, comparable to the interest rate of long-term loans. According to the Civil Code, the rent is paid for the temporary transfer of the apartment to the tenant, taking into account the value of the apartment. Price regulation should always be in a subsidiary position, i.e. only in the absence of an agreement of the autonomous Contracting Parties, and no legislation should make this agreement impossible. It is therefore unacceptable for any administrative authority to prepare sanctions for entities which currently freely negotiate rent from an apartment in accordance with the quoted finding of the Constitutional Court, namely in good faith that such an agreement takes precedence over the regulation in question.

On the basis of the above, a group of Senators proposes that the Constitutional Court annul the Government Regulation in question in the light of the conflict with Articles 1 and 89 (2) of the Constitution, Articles 1, 3, 4 and 11 of the Charter and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention, on the date to be determined. At the same time, the appellants requested the Constitutional Court to rule on their proposal as urgent within the meaning of Article 39 of the Constitutional Court Act.

In view of the repeated unconstitutional interference in the area of rent from the flat by the Government and the Ministry of Finance and in order to avoid any serious damage or damage, to prevent the imminent violent interference or other serious public interest, the appellants further request that the Constitutional Court, by analogy with the provisions of § 80 and in accordance with the provisions of § 63 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the Law on the Constitutional Court '), apply the relevant provisions of Act No. 99 / 1963 Coll., the Civil Code, to give preliminary measures prohibiting the Government from continuing, in its intervention into prices of rent from an apartment through the issuing of its own legislation. The appellants consider this measure to be the only way to protect entities against undue interference by the executive authorities and as the only way to enforce the binding decision of the Constitutional Court, including against the Government. In this connection, the appellants referred to the provisions of Section 158 of the Criminal Act, which deals with the subjective liability of public officials.

In its observations on the proposal, the Government stated that it accepts the appellants' argument only to the extent and in the context that it corresponds to the previous two findings of the Constitutional Court on rent regulation. However, the Government does not agree with the view set out in Case 231 / 2000 Coll., that the contested decree did not take into account the destruction of property rights after February 1948, and stressed that the Constitutional Court did not dispute in both previous findings the possibility of regulation of rent, if it fulfilled the legal conditions, rejected the argument that only a group of tenants was protected by the rent regulation, did not dispute the obligation of the lessors to comply with certain restrictions, as well as the obligation of the lessees to intervene in the contractual relationship by state measures, and the Constitutional Court saw the chosen form of rent regulation as non-constitutional when the substatutory standard was used to regulate non-price relations.

As regards the various arguments put forward by the appellants, the Government has indicated that the contested regulation is another category of regulation, which is an exceptional and time-limited measure to which it was taken in order to respond, following the annulment of the price notice, to the finding of the Constitutional Court on a completely unacceptable situation in which tenants will be subjected to massive pressure from the lessors to deal with any change in the lease contracts. The real nature of this threat was confirmed not only by the statements of civil associations of homeowners, calling for massive unilateral increases in rent, but, above all, by countless cases where specific homeowners began to enforce increases in rent in the order of hundreds of percent and citizens turned to the government for help. In view of the constitutional complaint lodged, the Government considers it relevant whether it acted in accordance with the Price Act. It expressed its view that the regulation was issued on the basis of an authorisation in Section 9 of the Price Act, which allows it to prohibit price increases above the level still in force on the market for the goods concerned for up to 6 months. It is not only prices regulated and the law does not provide for a method of establishing the market price level in force; the government has chosen a level of rent from apartments specified by the regulation. The Government further stated that, pursuant to Article 67 (1) of the Constitution, it is the supreme authority of the executive authority and not the central authority of the government within the meaning of Article 1 (6) and (7) of the Price Act, and is therefore entitled, within the limits of Article 9 of the Act, to establish a price moratorium where the criterion for a political decision to determine it is a public interest in view of the position and function of the Government. The government is not bound by the reasons for price regulation, but must take into account the Price Act. According to that provision, the Government is obliged to inform Parliament of the application of the price moratorium, which is responsible for assessing the material reasons for the application of the price moratorium, and it is not for the Constitutional Court to examine the matter in this respect. The Government also rejected the appellants' claim that this form of rent regulation should not have taken place on the basis of a substatutory standard, because the law explicitly requires, in the present case, the publication of a price moratorium in the form of a government regulation, and the contested regulation does not provide for any other questions or concepts. If the appellants are seeking a provisional measure, such a proposal does not support the Constitutional Court Act, since that law does not allow the application of the provisional measure in proceedings for annulment of laws and other legislation. In view of this, the Government proposes that the Constitutional Court reject the motion of a group of senators.

The contested Government Decree No 567 / 2002 Coll. provided that the rent from an apartment which was regulated by a maximum price on 17 December 2002 and the rent from an apartment whose construction, completion or reconstruction was authorised after 30 June 1993 and the financing of which was involved in public funds could not be increased for a period of 3 months from the date of entry into force. Without the Constitutional Court's intention to go into a more detailed legal analysis at this stage, it is clear that the subject of that legislation is - in general sense - the regulation of rent from the apartment. As the Senators have already mentioned in their proposal, the Constitutional Court has already dealt with the rent regulation in two cases, in which it decided, on the one hand, the finding of 21.6.2000 sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 3 / 2000 (publ. under No. 231 / 2000 Coll.), which, on 31 December 2001, repealed the Order of the Ministry of Finance No. 176 / 1993 Coll., on the other hand, the rent of the apartment and the reimbursement of the transactions provided with the use of the apartment, as amended, and, on the other hand, the finding of 20.11.2002 sp. Since the Constitutional Court has in those cases ruled on the same material as in this case, the Constitutional Court has primarily focused on whether the legal views contained in these earlier decisions (possibly to what extent) can be used in the assessment of the proposal in question.

For this reason, the Constitutional Court considers it necessary, in a brief manner, to recall the reasons for the decisions referred to above. In Found No 231 / 2000 Coll. The Constitutional Court concludes that the protection of tenants is part of our legal order under international human rights and fundamental agreements, freedoms within the meaning of Article 10 of the Constitution, in particular Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 16 of the European Social Charter and Article 4 of the Additional Protocol to the Charter; the right of tenants to a certain protection, as is apparent from the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Mellacher and others against Austria of 19.12.1989 (A-168), also corresponds to the obligation of owners (owners) to comply with the introduction of regulation, but only on condition that there is a reasonable (justified) relationship between the resources used and the objectives pursued. This principle was violated because the decree was built too unilaterally when dealing with the disproportion between the protection of tenants and the protection of ownership, not taking into account the process of destruction of property rights after February 1948 in the area of housing management. The situation in question required the elimination of discrimination against homeowners in such a way as to satisfy their right to peaceful use of property within the meaning of Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention, as well as the right enshrined in Article 11 (1) of the Charter, which has not, however, happened and the category of owners concerned are not only denied some of the essential rights constituting the content of their property rights, but, moreover, they are "maneuverable 'in a situation where, in a number of cases, they are" subsidised' by the State and the whole of the Constitutional Court, as a burden which is not only possible for a certain social group, and whose gravity and nature requires a truly responsible and balanced approach by the State and the whole company. According to the Constitutional Court, there is no doubt that the category of owners in question is obliged to comply with certain restrictions on the increase of rent, but it may, under the conditions laid down in Article 4 (3) and (4) of the Charter, which is not so, since certain categories of owners are forced to comply with significant restrictions on their property rights, while others are not, and this restriction is done by the contested decree in a way which does not conserve the substance of the property right. Finally, the Constitutional Court took the view that, if price regulation is not to go beyond the limits of constitutionality, it must clearly not reduce the price in such a way as to eliminate at least their return, given all the costs shown and necessarily incurred, because in such a case it would actually imply a denial of the purpose and of all the functions of ownership.

In the second above mentioned finding No 528 / 2002 Coll., the Constitutional Court addressed the question of the legality of the contested measure MF No 6 / 2002 and concluded that the Ministry of Finance, in addition to the legal mandate (Act No 526 / 1990 Coll.) and, beyond its scope, provided for the rules of conduct of designated entities as a purposeful basis for resolving problems in the field of housing policy of the State, which is the starting point of the law establishing a conflict with Article 4 (1) and (2) of the Charter. Consequently, he pointed out the fact that it was an attempt to replace the legislation which was abolished by the Constitutional Court finding No 231 / 2000 Coll. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court stated further reasons why the measure in question should be considered not only as contrary to the law but also as unconstitutional. First of all, the Constitutional Court considered that the choice of this path of regulation had affected the rule of law in the rule of law, when the "price decision 'in question constituted a solution to issues the regulation of which should be reserved for the democratically legitimate legislator or for the sublegal legislation within the limits of the legislator's mandate. Subsequently, the Constitutional Court addressed the concept of price regulation and concluded that it is not unconstitutional when based on market prices dependent on the location of houses, but must respect the" fair balance "between the imperatives of general interest and the protection of the fundamental rights of the individual. As a result, it was pointed out that even though the so-called personal use of flats, when relations to apartments were generally established by an administrative act of the State and not by contract, had not been transformed into" renting an apartment, "the actual transformation of the legal regulation of the rental relationship, corresponding to the market economy system, had not occurred. This was demonstrated by the Constitutional Court by differences in our legislation compared to the European standard, in particular as regards the duration of the contract, the scope of the transfer of rights of use, the exchange of apartments, the grounds for notice and the obligation to provide a replacement apartment. When it comes to rent regulation, it used to be based on so-called command prices, while in European countries it was based on market housing prices. The current attempt to compromise between the two concepts, based solely on the adjustment of rental costs and inflation, regardless of the impact of the market, does not benefit from the allocation and information effect of market prices, but leads, in the view of the Constitutional Court, to the non-use of the housing fund, the injustice of its distribution and corruption. The correlation between the price regulation of rent and the lagging of the transformation of civil law relations regulating housing results in an imbalance between the principle of the protection of tenants and the principle of the protection of property, whereby subsidies to tenants from social resources through low rental prices have been passed on to some tenants. In addition, the Constitutional Court found a breach of equality in the treatment of individuals by State authority, since one group of property rights entities is treated differently and their assets do not have the same legal content as those of other lessors; He stressed, however, that this fact does not exclude in a reasonable proportion the protection of both the interests of the owner and the tenants, and that, in a certain period of time, the interests of one party may be preferred, but not permanently and not unilaterally. Although, according to the Constitutional Court, it is possible to establish sufficient legal certainty for existing use relationships in the transformation period, that is, when Decree No. 176 / 1993 Coll., came into force, these reasons are currently losing their strength, especially in the absence of the actual existence of a rental relationship, but of the regulation of rent. The ownership of rental apartments is also property and therefore cannot be permanently excluded from the regular legal regime and subject to a special scheme, unless there are serious reasons. The previous circumstances were reasonable, but the current restrictions on owners cannot be maintained, even if an appropriate form of regulation was chosen by law. The Constitutional Court also stressed that price regulation cannot be considered unconstitutional, but it must be assessed what is the subject of regulation, to whom it is directed, what form it is and to what extent - in terms of the principle of proportionality and protection of substance and the meaning of fundamental right or freedom - it can be used. This also applies to rent regulation, which requires careful consideration of both the existence of public interest justifying the application of guidance measures and the choice of rules for its implementation in order to respect an adequate balance between the requirement of the general interest of society and the requirement to protect the fundamental rights of the individual. This means that there must be a reasonable (justified) relationship between the resources used and the objectives pursued, and this rule has not been respected in the light of the time elapsed since 1989. It is possible to restrict the right of ownership by regulating rent by law and under the conditions laid down by the Charter only to the extent that it does not affect the substance of the property and to respect the prohibition of discrimination. The rule in this area is to determine the lease as free (not any) rent, and regulation is then an exception which should be limited in time to the necessary period. In conclusion, the Constitutional Court summarised that the contested effect in terms of its content and legal form had been infringed by Article 2 (2) of the Charter and Article 2 (3) of the Constitution in conjunction with Articles 1, 4 (3) and 4 and 11 (1) of the Charter and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, when the Ministry of Finance did not respect the legal scope and intervened in the regulation area reserved for the laws, discriminated against the group of owners in the absence of a" reasonable ratio' between the resources used and the objective pursued in respect of the period since 1989. That authority also violated the principle of division of power and the rule of law (Articles 1 and 15 of the Constitution).

Following a summary of the case law on the issue of the regulation of rent, the Constitutional Court assessed the contested government regulation in terms of legal effects. It can generally be said that its purpose and purpose is to "freeze" the amount of rent for a limited period of time. The subject of the regulation is not the rent in general, but it is, on the one hand, the rent which was, on 17 December 2002, regulated by the maximum price, namely the rent within the meaning of point 1 of measure MF No 06 / 2002, which at the following date, i.e. 18.12.2002, which was already quoted by the Constitutional Court's finding No 528 / 2002 Coll. and, on the other hand, the rent for apartments whose construction or reconstruction was allowed after 30 June 1993 and the financing of which public funds were involved, i.e. the so-called housing with a rectified rent (cf. 3 (cf. 3 (1) of the same notice). It can be seen from the above that the price moratorium shows a close link to measure No 06 / 2002, where in both cases the subject matter of the legal regulation is essentially identical. However, as regards the content of the legal regulation, the contested regulation does not refer, even implicitly, to that measure of MF, as the legislation already repealed. Where the appellants state that the government has introduced a retroactive pricing scheme on the basis of a price moratorium, i.e. from 18.12.2002, and thus it is an "inefficient 'or obsolescence adjustment, this view cannot be accepted, since the contested regulation shows that it takes effect on the date of publication, which was the date of 20.12.2002, when it does not require, in respect of the amount of the rent, the application of the legislation repealed before its publication (measure MF No 06 / 2002); it is merely a definition of the substantive scope of the legal rule contained in the regulation, when the fact that there is a certain" features', even if that is in one case of regulation on a particular date. It can therefore be generally concluded that the contested regulation, as of 20 December 2002, preserves the "de facto 'state of rent, i.e. a situation based on individual legal relations, since it cannot be concluded without further indication that the Decree of Government No 567 / 2002 Coll. maintains the amount of rent from the apartment at the level which the Constitutional Court considered to be unconstitutional by its finding No 528 / 2002 Coll.

In the light of the above, the question arises as to what this situation is, more precisely, to what extent - legally speaking - the rent is now regulated. It may be assumed that the measure MF No 06 / 2002 expired and became effective on 18.12.2002 and from that date nothing prevented the parties from negotiating the amount of the lease; On the contrary, a unilateral increase in rent by the lessor was no longer permitted, as the rent of the apartment is allowed to be increased unilaterally, provided that special legislation (Section 696 (1) of the Civil Code) so provides, which is now missing. Nor can any other possibility be omitted for one of the Contracting Parties to refer the rent to the competent court; This would be the case in the case of a dispute over the amount of the rent, in particular if the lessor applied for the rent of "normal 'on the ground that there was no price agreement (Section 671 (1) of the Civil Code); In such cases, however, it would not be an" increase' of rent in the true sense of the word (see also below on this issue). At this point, it can be assumed that the rent could not be increased unilaterally after the cancellation of the measure MF No 06 / 2002 and, if the increase took place, this could happen on the basis of an agreement between the two parties, which is, of course, rather theoretical, given not only the short space of time for possible non-goggle, but in particular the generally known economic disadvantage of this step from the point of view of the tenant. It can be seen from the above that the contested regulation temporarily retains de facto the rent which was declared - both in terms of its amount and in terms of the method (s) of creation - after the unconstitutional finding of the Constitutional Court No 528 / 2002 Coll. and, consequently, no 231 / 2000 Coll. The fundamental difference from previous legislation is that the legislation under assessment is based on other legal powers and applies only in the short term (for a period of three months), which could significantly reduce the severity of its possible effects, and, moreover, the Constitutional Court has accepted the possibility of maintaining price regulation for a period of strictly necessary. Therefore, in the present case, the question arises as to whether these circumstances do not preclude the creation of an unconstitutionality as established in the previous rental law, but the Constitutional Court did not reach that conclusion for the reasons set out below.

According to Section 1 (6) of the Price Law, price formation or price regulation may be regulated where the market is threatened by the effects of restrictions on competition or requires an exceptional market situation, one form of price regulation being a price moratorium within the meaning of Sections 4 (1) (d) and 9 of the Price Act, which may be set for a maximum period of six months. While the Government argues that the provisions of § 1 (6) and § 7 of the Price Act refer to central government bodies, which is not the government, it is precisely because of the systematic classification of price moratorium on price regulation or between price regulation methods (§ 3 (1) and (4) of the Price Act) that the above mentioned provision should be applied mutatis mutandis even in the case of a procedure under § 9 of the Law. It should be noted that this is an exceptional form of regulation, the aim of which is to eliminate the crisis situation on the relevant market. As is apparent from the explanatory memorandum to the Price Act, the price moratorium should be accompanied by a complex of macroeconomic measures enabling the removal of a crisis and a return to normal market conditions. The assessment of whether the situation requires the issue of a price moratorium, as well as the choice of subsequent economic measures, is, in principle, one of the so-called political questions which is not for the judiciary to assess, provided that the executive powers respect the legal limits.

In the case at hand, the situation has arisen that the goods (services) subject to regulation, namely the rental of apartments with regulated rent, for a large part of the apartments, especially in large cities, are not likely to be referred to as the place of the voluntary shift at all (in these cases it is more the market in which the rent rights are sold illegally). It is probably not necessary to emphasise, nor is it necessary, that, in contrast, the market for rental apartments with contract rental is significantly distorted by supply-side restrictions (lower number of "free 'flats, the unwillingness of owners to rent apartments for a given degree of protection for tenants) and demand (economic advantage of housing in apartments with regulated rent), thus suffering a large part of the population. Thus, the restriction of competition in the" market' of apartments as a whole is not primarily due to the imperfections of the market itself (the real market operates without the greater attention of the government), but to previous (illegal) regulatory measures by the State. The purpose and purpose of price regulation is to protect against the negative effects of an imperfect market, or, in the case of a price moratorium, the current crisis situation which, as is apparent from the nature of the case, is the cause of the market itself. If the Constitutional Court were to conclude that the housing market at all exists (see above), the necessary legal precondition for accepting a price moratorium is precisely the creation of an unforeseen exceptional situation on the market, which has been triggered by factual circumstances. Such an exceptional market situation may generally be considered to be the case where, or could occur in a very short period of time, there is a multiple price increase for an item which is substantially involved in the necessary expenditure of an individual or family, which may also be a case of rent, so that prima facie the issue of the area in question may appear legitimate. This is not the case in the case at hand. First of all, the causes of the possible crisis are not directly in the market as such, but in previous state regulatory measures (in the wider sense), and the issue of the regulation in question is not a response to an unexpected market situation - it is undoubtedly known to the government for several years - but to the legal situation arising after the declaration of the Constitutional Court No 528 / 2002 Coll., which is clearly a purposeful "solution 'which should have been reserved for other legal instruments. However, above all, the Constitutional Court concluded that there was no situation at all that would allow for the impact growth of rent. In view of these (more serious) facts, it was therefore not considered necessary to examine in detail whether the contested regulation sufficiently defines the scope of the addressees within the meaning of Article 3 (2) of the Price Law or the reasons for the restriction of regulation to certain rental relationships only; On the other hand, however, there may be no doubt as to who is the addressee of the legal standard in question, nor can it be ruled out, in general, that there may be justifiable reasons for a certain selectivity in terms of the effects of the regulation in question, although in the case of a price moratorium, there should be full market complexes (see the explanatory note to the Price Law). First of all, it is necessary to refer back to the above-mentioned decisions of the Constitutional Court, when it is noted in Case 231 / 2000 Coll. that the cause of the breach of constitutionality was not price regulation as such, but the inadequacy of the amount of the price in the regulation, and the Constitutional Court expressed the principle that the price cannot be reduced in such a way as to eliminate at least the possibility of a return, given all costs demonstrated and necessarily incurred. The minimum recovery requirement for expenditure necessarily incurred may be derived from this. This principle was supplemented by the Constitutional Court in a substantial way by the finding No. 528 / 2002 Coll., when it found defects even in the way the regulated price is determined, i.e. depending on the evolution of costs and inflation, and stressed the principle of free prices, with the acceptance (possibly outside the transitional period) of rent regulation in direct dependence on market conditions. The Constitutional Court then considered the violation of those rules to be unconstitutional and annulled the contested legislation. However, it should be pointed out here that, although they have been abolished, the unconstitutional situation has not been remedied, since despite the decision of the Constitutional Court, the rent has continued to be fixed at a level which was also found to be unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. This follows from the fact that, as indicated above, a unilateral increase in the lease by the lessor is not permissible nor can the agreement of the parties be expected on this issue; the owners - due to the high degree of protection of tenants, as described in detail in the Constitutional Court No 528 / 2002 Coll. - in fact, they do not have the possibility to terminate the lease and subsequently conclude a contract with the lease established by the actual agreement. (The phenomenon in which the unconstitutional state arises as a result of the interaction of several individual regulations is referred to in German technical literature as" Normengeflecht', i.e. "intertwining 'the standards.)

On the other hand, as indicated above, the situation in question essentially calls into question the merits of the contested regulation. The Constitutional Court considers that State interference in the rights and freedoms of individuals is permissible provided that the principle of proportionality between the resources used and the objectives pursued (see, for example, the findings of the Constitutional Court No 167 / 2000 Coll., No 231 / 2000 Coll., No 410 / 2001 Coll.) is respected, one of the criteria of this principle being the principle of eligibility for the purpose (or suitability), according to which the measure must at all be capable of achieving the intended objective of protecting another fundamental right or public good. If this aim was to protect tenants from the actual or potential effects of the market (or possibly together with the excessive behaviour of specific tenants), the measure is superfluous because, in view of the existing legislation, the lessee was not exposed to the potential negative effects of the market after the cancellation of MF measure 6 / 2002, and the resolution of legal problems in individual relations is a matter for the public authorities concerned. While it would be possible to understand the government's efforts to eliminate some uncertainty of the operators concerned, it is, from a legal point of view, irrelevant in terms of price regulation, leading, on the contrary, as the appellants point out, to improperly restrict the contractual freedom of the parties.

It should be added that, in the light of the Constitution and the statutory powers of the Constitutional Court, which is bound by the proposal and, on the other hand, acts only as a "negative legislator ', the Constitutional Court did not have the power to remove the status of the Constitutional Tribunal for several years, so that it could only draw the attention of the legislature (see Case No 528 / 2002 Coll.) to the matter of the need for constitutional compliance. However, it remained dormant (i.e. it was active without the desired result, which is the issue of the relevant law), resulting in inconsistency with Article 1 of the Constitution; Moreover, by executive power, this unconstitutional state has been temporarily" preserved "by the issuing of the contested regulation. The Constitutional Court takes the general view that it is possible, of course, provided that the public interest is protected, to apply different standards for very short-term interference in the rights and freedoms of the individual, precisely because of its lower effects than in the case of interventions without a time limit; However, this cannot be the case if a number of already declared unconstitutional interventions are preceded by essentially the same content - that is, as regards the issue of the rent amount - because this is essentially a denial of the" short-term' element; In other words, the extension of the existing unconstitutional state is not only undesirable, but also inadmissible, so is the anti-constitutional regulation that causes this extension.

In this context, the fact of a de facto content agreement now under investigation, namely as regards the amount of the rent, with those previously declared by the Constitutional Court as being unconstitutional, taking into account that such intervention took place again in the form of a substatutory act, which was also found to be in the past by the Constitutional Court to constitute an unconstitutional act on the grounds set out in the cited findings, namely by infringement of Article 2 (2) of the Charter and Article 2 (3) of the Constitution in conjunction with Articles 1, 4 (3) and (4) and Article 11 (1) of the Charter and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention. The Constitutional Court therefore notes that Decree No. 567 / 2002 Coll., establishing the price moratorium on rent from flats, is contrary to the constitutional order and international obligations of the Czech Republic. For this reason, the Constitutional Court was forced to abolish them under Paragraph 70 (1) of the Constitutional Court Act. The Constitutional Court agrees with the appellants' view that there has been a breach of Article 89 (2) of the Constitution because the Government was bound in its previous findings by the Constitutional Court, when the relevant legal opinions expressed in the above mentioned findings were sufficient guidance for further action by the Government (not only a statement of findings but also a statement of reasons, or parts thereof, which contain "supporting 'reasons; cf. Filip, J., Holländer, P., Šiměl, V.: Law on the Constitutional Court, commentary, C. H. Beck, 1st edition, 2001, p. 286 - 287), not to mention that respect for the views of the Constitutional Court is a normal part of political and legal culture in developed countries.

To this end, as an obiter dictum, the Constitutional Court considers it necessary to state that the legislation implemented by the Civil Code shows that the rent is negotiated in principle by agreement, possibly valid at the time of the conclusion of the contract (Section 671 (1) of the Civil Code). It follows from this that the basis of the lease relationship is either a real or at least hypothetical consensus of both parties in addition to the price issue (i.e. the rent provided for by the agreement or the usual, in-event market). However, for rental contracts for which the rent was regulated in particular by the maximum price, a specific situation arose. As the Constitutional Court described in detail in Case No 528 / 2002 Coll., the lease of the apartment was transformed from the right of personal use of the apartment, which was characterised by the fact that it had a quasi-ownership character, and was created by the allocation of the apartment and the amount of the remuneration in the vast majority did not arise on the basis of free agreement of the parties, but was officially established (for example Czech, Z., and others.: Civil Code, commentary, Works I, Panorama, Prague 1987, p. 539 et al.). The transformation of personal use to "classical" rent was imperfect, as the rental relationship maintained a number of features of the previous legal relationship, which reflected both the high degree of protection of tenants by civil law standards and the regulation of the amount of rent. Both of these factors together made it impossible to talk about the hypothetical consensus of the parties in many areas of the Czech Republic (rather, it is often a deep disharmony). In view of the unconstitutional status of the law (and for the above-mentioned legal specificities of lease contracts with "regulated" rental), if the constitutional conformity of rent is not introduced into the Czech legal order, the Constitutional Court will have no choice but to comply with its obligations under the Constitution and at least in individual cases ensure the functioning of principles based on the constitutional order of the Czech Republic. the relevant international conventions, even if such a solution is insufficient, non-systemic and essentially only provisional, where the only real starting point is clearly the adoption of the relevant legislation in the sense of the Constitutional Court's previous finding.

Furthermore, a group of Senators requests that the Constitutional Court prohibit the government from continuing to intervene in the area of apartment rental prices by issuing its own legislation on the basis of provisional measures. However, it is not apparent from this proposal whether the provisional measures should apply until the publication of the finding, as is the case with the provisional measures, for example under Article 80 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, or only (possibly i) after that publication, which can be concluded from the fact that the appellants consider them the sole way of enforcing the decision of the Constitutional Court. As regards the first case, the Constitutional Court did not decide on this proposal, as it directly decided on the substance of the case, for its urgency outside the order of the proposals received. It should also be added that, in the proceedings for the annulment of laws and other legislation under the Section of the First Title of the Second Law on the Constitutional Court, the issue of interim measures is not, in contrast to the procedure under the Section of the Third or Seventh Titles. On the basis of the argument of per-eliminationon, it can be clearly concluded that the Constitutional Court is not entitled to issue any provisional measures in the present proceedings, so that the application in question under Paragraph 43 (1) (d) of the Constitutional Court Act should be rejected as an application which the Constitutional Court is not competent to consider. If a group of senators proposes to issue a "preliminary 'measure for futuro, it is a similar situation, since the Constitutional Court can only act as provided for by the law in the proceedings for the annulment of laws and other legislation, i.e. decide in the manner laid down in Paragraph 70 of the Constitutional Court Act, the decision of the type proposed is not covered by that provision. In view of this, the Constitutional Court had no choice but to reject the application under Paragraph 43 (1) (d) of the Law on the Constitutional Court (per analogiam).