Statistical data: 1 January 1996 - 30 April 1996

Number of decisions taken:
• Decisions on the merits by the plenum of the Court: 3
• Decisions on the merits by panels of the Court: 3
• Number of other decisions by the plenum: 2
• Number of other decisions by panels: 30
• Total number of cases brought to the Court: 223

Important decisions

Identification: SVK-96-1-001
a) Slovakia / b) Constitutional Court / c) Plenum / d) 02.04.1996 / e) PLUS 30/95 / f) Case of constitutionality of statutes / g) Collection of Laws of the Slovak Republic, no. 130, 1996 Z.z. in brief; to be published in the Collection of judgments and decisions of the Constitutional Court in complete version / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Institutions - Executive bodies - Territorial administrative decentralisation - Municipalities.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights - Right to property - Other limitations.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Contractual liberty / Property, municipal.

Headnotes:
Laws on restitution, no more than any other laws, may not extend or reduce the limits imposed on the activities of State bodies by the Constitution.
The duty to contract may not be imposed on persons by statute because the essential basis for any contract is the free will of the parties to that contract.

Summary:
The petitioners, a group of 34 members of the National Council of the Slovak Republic, claimed that there was a constitutional conflict between Law no. 147/1995 amending Law no. 138/1991 on the Property of Villages, as amended by a series of other laws, and Articles 12.1, 13.2,20.1 and 20.4 of the Slovak Constitution. According to Law no. 147/1995, village municipalities were obliged to conclude a contract on the replacement of forests if the Slovak government so requested.
The Constitutional Court appraised Law no. 147/1995, which had the affect of restricting the rights of village municipalities. This restriction was contrary to the principle provided for within Article 12.1 of the Constitution according to which fundamental rights and freedoms are inalienable, irrevocable and absolutely perpetual. In the context of this principle, the duty to contract may not be imposed on persons by statute because the essential basis for any contract is the free will of the parties to that contract.
This basis of the law of contract was denied by the obligation imposed on the villages by the statute in question. What is more, the right to own property provided for in Article 20.1 of the Constitution serves to entitle the owner to lawfully control a thing in his or her ownership. This opportunity includes deciding on the issue of ownership, on who can take advantage of it, and on who may have such a thing at his or her disposal. This exclusive control is further reflected in the fact that all persons are obliged to respect such decisions of the owner.
The right to own property is guaranteed by the duty imposed on all other persons not to disturb the owner when exercising such control. The duty to conclude a contract on the replacement of forests under Law no. 147/1995 constitutes an evident restriction on the owner's right to own property. Law no. 147/1995 is one of a series of legal regulations on restitution which was adopted in Slovakia. Laws on restitution, no more than any other laws, may not extend or reduce the limits imposed on the activities of State bodies by the Constitution.
The constitutional principle in Article 20.1 excludes the possibility of extending more vigorous protection to one owner than to other owners of a comparable thing. As this principle was breached through the priority given to the interests of the State under Law no. 147/1995, the provisions which imposed restrictions on villages in the name of the interests of the State were proclaimed to be contrary to Article 20.1 of the Constitution.

Languages: Slovak.

Identification: SVK-96-1-002
a) Slovakia / b) Constitutional Court / c) Plenum / d) 03.04.1996/e)PL.US 38/95/f) Case of constitutionality of statutes / g) to be published in the Collection of Laws of the Slovak Republic in brief; to be published in the Collection of decisions and judgments of the Constitutional Court in complete version / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights - Equality.
Fundamental rights - Civil and political rights - Right to property - Other limitations.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Shares, Golden share.

Headnotes:
Article 20.1 of the Slovak Constitution does not proclaim that property itself is a human right. Only the right to be an owner, to have the obtained property protected, is guaranteed under that constitutional provision.

Summary:
The petitioners, a group of 36 members of the National Council of the Slovak Republic, claimed that there was a constitutional conflict between paragraph 6 of Law no. 192/1995 on Securing the Interests of State Within Privatisation of Strategically Significant Enterprises and Share Companies, and Articles 1,2.2,12.1,12.2,13.1, 13.3,13.4,20.1,20.4 of the Constitution and Articles 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.3, 4.4, 11.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
The petitioner's principal argument was that paragraph 6.3 of Law no. 192/1995 introduced new, retroactive restrictions on existing legal relations.
Other arguments brought forward by the petitioner concerned changes and vigorous restrictions on share-holdings in enterprises and companies through the introduction of a brand new type of share, a so called "golden share". This new share was introduced by the legislator in reliance on paragraph 6.3 of Law no. 192/1995.
The Constitutional Court ruled that Article 20.1 of the Slovak Constitution does not proclaim that property itself is a human right. The right to be an owner, to have the obtained property protected, is guaranteed under that constitutional provision. This right belongs to the citizens of the Slovak Republic as well as to foreigners, judicial persons and the State. According to Article 4 of the Constitution, the State is vested with the exclusive right to own raw materials, underground water, natural and thermal springs and streams.
Under Article 20.2, for the purposes of safeguarding the needs of society, the interests of the general public, and the advancement of the national economy, the law shall determine other property which may be vested exclusively in the State. Due to Articles 4 and 20.2, it is obviously providing for a general right to own solely that property which is not vested exclusively in the State. For such property as can be owned by everyone, any owner's rights and duties must be equal to those enjoyed by all other owners of comparable property.
With the "golden share", differences between owners were created. Those differences did not depend on constitutionally accepted differences between the type of property so owned. The differences, grounded on paragraph 6 of Law no. 192/1995, therefore brought about unequal rights of ownership in a manner contrary to the constitutional principle of the equal enjoyment of property rights. In consequence, the Constitutional Court ruled that paragraph 6 was neither in conformity with Article 20.1 of the Slovak Constitution nor with Article 11.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.
As far as the arguments on retroactivity were concerned, the Constitutional Court decided that the objection of retroactivity is relevant and admissible solely in circum-stances where the law claimed to be in constitutional conflict was adopted in accordance with Article 2.2 of the Constitution, according to which "State bodies may act solely in conformity with the Constitution. Their actions shall be subject to its limits, within its scope and governed by procedures determined by law."
If the National Council of the Slovak Republic adopts a law which may not be adopted by Parliament, or if the adopted law exceeds constitutional limits, there is no constitutional ground for considering whether such a law is in conformity with the principle of non-retroactivity. The law exceeding the limits given by the Constitution is no law at all, and this is why the issue of its retroactive effects is irrelevant.

Languages: Slovak