Found at the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic No. 92 / 1995 Coll.
Findings of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic of 12 April 1995 concerning the application for annulment of certain provisions of the Czech National Council Act No. 589 / 1992 Coll., on social security contributions and contributions to state employment policy, as amended
Valid
The Constitutional Tribunal found
Text versions:
08.06.1995
92
FIND
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic
On behalf of the Czech Republic
The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic decided on 12 April 1995 in plenary on the proposal of a group of Members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic to repeal certain provisions of the Czech National Council Act No. 589 / 1992 Coll., on social security contributions and contributions to state employment policy, as amended, as follows:
Motion denied.
Reasons
By submissions of 27.4.1994, supplemented and refined by submissions of 31.8.1994 and 17.1.1995, a group of 42 Members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic proposed, pursuant to the provisions of § 64 (1) (b) of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, that the Constitutional Court annul certain provisions of the Czech National Council Act No. 589 / 1992 Coll., on social security insurance and the contribution to state employment policy, as amended, concerning old-age pensioners.
The proposal (in the additional submission of 17 January 1995) seeks the annulment of the following provisions of the Czech National Council Act No. 589 / 1992 Coll., as amended:
1. Articles 3 (1) (c) and 3 (2),
2. the provision expressed in Paragraph 5 (2), first and third sentences, in the words "old-fashioned or"; and
3. the provision expressed in § 14a (2), first sentence, and § 14a (5), third sentence, in the words "old-fashioned or."
The contested provisions are not, according to the proposal, in accordance with Articles 4 (1) and (4) and 11 (3) and (4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic pursuant to Article 3 of the Constitution, and with Article 2 (1) of the International Covenant on Human Rights (correctly International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and Article 2 (2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
On 8 February 1995, a representative of a group of Members took the motion back and asked to be admitted to the withdrawal of the proposal and to stop the procedure on the ground that "in the course of consideration of the clarification of the proposal, the need to extend the proposal for annulment also in relation to Act No. 100 / 1988 Coll., on Social Security, as amended by the laws amending it and supplementing it proved to a relatively large extent. Since the representative of the Members for such a move did not have a mandate in the original proposal, and this is a significant change or extension of the proposal, it seems more correct to withdraw this proposal for the repeal of the law, with the submission of a new proposal concerning other related laws."
By order sp. zn. Pl. ÚS 12 / 94 of 20.2.1995, the Constitutional Court did not permit the withdrawal of the application and proceedings to be suspended by reference to the provisions of § 67 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., which only allows the termination of proceedings under the conditions set out in paragraphs 1 and 2, which do not include the application.
For this reason, the Constitutional Court was obliged to decide on a proposal by a group of Members to repeal certain provisions of the Czech National Council Act No. 589 / 1992 Coll., as amended and supplemented, according to the amended and supplemented submission of 17 January 1995.
Social insurance covers both pension and sickness insurance. According to the design, the concept of insurance is that if an insurance event occurs, the insurance benefit is to be covered or compensated for the consequences of such an event. However, according to the proposal, the old-age pension beneficiary is not entitled to any insurance benefits - as regards pension insurance -. It only receives an old-age pension which has already been granted to it and which is not further increased in the course of a further gainful activity.
With regard to sickness insurance benefits, the proposal states that an old-age pensioner has a three-month waiting period for entitlement to benefits and the receipt of sickness benefits is limited to 84 days.
Finally, according to the proposal, the contribution to the state employment policy does not entitle the old-age pensioner not only to receive unemployment benefits, but also to be registered as jobseekers at the employment authorities.
According to the proposal, this category is contrary to the provisions of Article 4 (1) and (4) and Article 11 (3) and (4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, which is part of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic under Article 3 of the Constitution, as well as to the provisions of Article 2 (1) of the International Covenant on Human Rights and Article 2 (2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
According to the proposal, this adjustment does not have the character of insurance premiums as indicated in the laws because it does not have equivalent "consideration 'and therefore has the nature of a hidden tax.
From the point of view of legislative engineering, a group of Members proposes the abolition of certain provisions of the Czech National Council Act No. 589 / 1992 Coll., as amended. Since these provisions do not specify separately a group of old-age pensioners [see Sections 3 (1) (c) and 3 (2) of the Act], the group of Members has proposed the abolition of social security contributions for all categories of insured persons, both of employees [see Sections 3 (1) (c) (1) to (12)] and of all self-employed persons (Section 3 (2)). The amount of the premium payable to taxpayers in the dependent proportion is 8,75% of the assessed basis [§ 7 paragraph 1 (b) of the Czech National Council Act No. 589 / 1992 Coll., as amended]. If the category of old-age pensioners had not paid insurance premiums, their net income would have increased by 8,75% from the assessment base, thereby causing inequality between that category and other dependants.
If the insurance income of an old-age pensioner would not be subject to the payment of an old-age pension, the insurance premium would be amortised by the employer, which for old-age pensions is 26,25% of the assessment base [Paragraph 7 (1) (a) of the Act] and for self-employed and cooperating 30,2% [Paragraph 7 (1) (e) of the Act].
Non-payment of insurance benefits to the employer would result in inequality between those who would employ old-age pensioners whose costs would be reduced by 26.25% of the basis of assessment which would not be compulsory for social security and those whose employees would not have received an old-age pension.
When making an adjustment proposed by a group of Members (abrogation of § 3 (1) (c) and § 3 (2) of the Act), virtually no employed person would pay social security contributions. Their claims for payment of benefits provided for by Act No. 100 / 1988 Coll., as amended, would be retained.
This fact was also realised by the representative of the group of Members, when he pointed out in his withdrawal and motion to stop proceedings the link between the Act of the Czech National Council No. 589 / 1992 Coll. and Act No. 100 / 1988 Coll., in their current version.
The Constitutional Court took the view that the principles of solidarity and equivalence were represented in different proportions in all existing social security schemes. Each social security system carries the advantage or disadvantage of certain social groups, depending on the preferred aspect of solidarity or the principle of equivalence. This regulation is reserved for a legislator who cannot proceed freely, but must take account of the public values observed when setting preferences. In the area under assessment, it is an area of economic legislation, the legislator has a much wider scope than in the laws that directly affect fundamental human rights and freedoms.
In the case of the gainful activity of old-age pensioners, the legislature based itself on an effort to apply the same rules to all employed citizens as regards the payment of social security premiums and the contribution to the state employment policy. Those rules shall be established in advance in respect of both the amount of premiums paid by persons who are dependent or self-employed and the amount paid by the employer.
The Constitutional Court could not agree with the claim contained in the proposal that premiums paid to old-age pensioners do not give them "compensation 'in any group to which they contribute, and that this is therefore a hidden tax imposed on them in breach of the rules in force.
A retired old-age pensioner shall be entitled to an invalidity pension if he becomes disabled as a result of an accident at work or an occupational disease if the invalidity pension is higher than the old-age pension he receives. In addition, he may receive a survivor's pension in the death of his spouse as well as an increase in the pension for helplessness. She's getting a raise on the kids, including a raise.
With regard to the payment of sickness insurance benefits, the old-age pensioner shall be entitled to the payment of sickness benefits from the first day of the insurance period and not, as the group of Members suggests, after three months.
Although the sickness benefit is limited to three months, at this time it is a type of preference for this category because it receives both an old-age pension and sickness benefits in parallel. Beneficiaries of an old-age pension shall be entitled, in addition to sickness benefits, to support the care of a family member.
Finally, the payment of the contribution to the state employment policy entitles the insured person to be a candidate for employment (Section 7 (1) of Act No. 1 / 1991 Coll., as amended by Act No. 578 / 1991 Coll.) and to information on employment, with the exception of the right to unemployment benefit, when it would be a combination with the old-age pension already paid.
On the basis of the above, the Constitutional Court then examined the various objections contained in the proposal of a group of Members and reached the following conclusions:
There is no objection to Article 4 (1) and (4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This provision does not provide for individual fundamental rights, but merely provides for the need to impose general obligations only on the basis of law, while maintaining fundamental rights and freedoms. This provision can therefore only be invoked following further provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, of the Constitution or of international treaties within the meaning of Article 10 of the Constitution which contain specific fundamental rights or freedoms which have been infringed. The motion of a group of Members does not contain such facts.
Opposition with Article 11 (3) The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms set out in the proposal is also not given, since this provision is not legally relevant at all for the assessment of the case.
The contested infringement of Article 11 (4) The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms that the law on the payment of insurance premiums means the expropriation of part of the income of an old-age pensioner, the Constitutional Court could not agree with the proposal of a group of Members. Article 11 (4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms refers to substantive rights which could possibly be the case. Expropriation. This does not include pension benefits or income from the gainful activity of old-age pensioners and the associated payment of social security premiums.
The Constitutional Court did not find any objection to Article 2 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This provision prohibits discrimination only in respect of the individual rights set out in the Pact. However, the appellant did not object to any other law contained in this pact.
The same applies to Article 2 (2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
For all these reasons, the Constitutional Court concluded that a group of 42 Members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic of 27 April 1994, supplemented on 17 January 1995, could not be complied with and rejected the proposal.
President of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic:
JUDr. Kessler v. r.
The rights to attach a different opinion with their name to the decision were used by the Constitutional Court in accordance with Article 14 of Act No. 182 / 1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, the Judges JUDr. Vladimir Čermák, JUDr. Vladimir Paul, JUDr. Antonín Procházka, JUDr. Vlastimil Ševčík and JUDr. Eva Zarembová.
Sign in for notes, favorites and notifications
Regulation Information
| Citation | Findings of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic No. 92 / 1995 Coll., on the application for annulment of certain provisions of the Czech National Council Act No. 589 / 1992 Coll., on social security insurance and contribution to state employment policy, as amended |
|---|---|
| Regulation Type | The Constitutional Tribunal found |
| Author | - |
| Collection | Code of Laws |
| Date of Promulgation | 08.06.1995 |
|---|---|
| Effective from | - |
| Effective until | - |
| Status | Valid |
The regulation text is for informational purposes only.
Comments 0