Statistical data: 1 January 1997 - 30 April 1997

Number of decisions taken:
• Decisions on the merits by the plenum of the Court: 1
• Decisions on the merits by panels of the Court: 10
• Number of other decisions by the plenum: 3
• Number of other decisions by panels: 43
• Total number of cases brought to the Court: 242

Important decisions

Identification: SVK-1997-1 -001
a) Slovakia / b) Constitutional Court / c) Plenum / d) 27.02.1997 / e) PLUS 7/96 / f) Petition from 46 members of the parliament / g) Zbierka zakonov Slovenskej Republiky (Official Gazette), no. 77/1997 Z.z in brief; to be published in Zbierka nalezova uzneseni Ustanveho sudu Slovenskej Republiky (Collection of judgements and decisions of the Constitutional Court) in complete version / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Constitutional Justice - The subject of review – Rules issued by the executive.
Institutions - Executive bodies - Application of laws - Delegated rule-making powers.
Fundamental Rights - Civil and political rights – Right to property - Privatisation.

Keywords of the alphabetical index:
Competition, economic, protection / Court of Justice of the European Communities.

Headnotes:
Fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution may not be restricted by subordinate legislation passed by the government and other authorities of the executive power.
The Government is not vested with power to restrict the right to property or anti-trust law through governmental decrees.

Summary:
The petitioner, a group of 46 members of the Slovak parliament, brought a petition to the Court claiming the constitutional conflict between twelve provisions of the Governmental Decree no. 139/1996 amending Governmental Decree no. 134/1994, and a series of constitutional provisions, inter alia Articles 120.1, 20.1 and 55.2 of the Constitution.
Governmental Decree no. 139/1996 was adopted in order to give more detailed regulation on privatisation.
According to Article 120.1 of the Constitution: "The Government shall have the power to pass regulations for the implementation of laws within limits defined by law." The provision of Article 20.1 of the Constitution: "Property rights of all owners shall be uniformly construed and equally protected by law" was the other reason for bringing the case to Court. According to Article 55.2 of the Constitution: 'The Slovak Republic shall protect and encourage economic competition. Details shall be provided by law".
The Court ruled that the Government, the ministries and any other authority of the executive power are not vested with power to pass a regulation on relations which are not regulated by laws passed by the parliament. Relation regulated through the parliamentary law may not be regulated by the executive power through its rules to an extent which exceeds the law or is contrary to the law. When passing subordinate legislation the government is obliged to observe all laws in force. The government was authorised by the parliament to pass the secondary rules on strictly defined issues concerning privatisation. This authorisation was far exceeded by the Government when passing the Governmental Decree no. 139/1996. Due to this seven provisions of the governmental decree were declared unconstitutional.
On economic competition the Court ruled that economic competition is a value guaranteed by the Constitution which is only protected relatively, not erga omnes values guaranteed by the Constitution. There are other public interests and according to the circumstances of the case they might be worthy of stronger constitutional protection. This legal opinion of the Court is explicitly compared to the legal opinion of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 19 January 1994. According to this Court:
"air navigation control, which is not directly at issue in the main proceedings, is a task involving the exercise of public authority and is not of an economic nature, since that activity constitutes a service in the public interest which is intended to protect both the users of air transport and the populations affected by aircraft flying over them" (Sat Fluggesellschaft mbh v. Eurocontrol). Although other public interests might be worthy of stronger protection than the interest in economic competition, the constitutional guarantee to protect and encourage economic competition within the limits defined by law means that the authorities of the executive power have no power to pass provisions restricting economic competition. This power is vested exclusively with the parliament. Neither the government, nor any other administrative authority may pass subordinate legislation restricting economic competition. As Governmental Decree no. 139/1996 had done this, the Government had infringed Article 55.2 of the Constitution.

Languages: Slovak.

Identification: SVK-1997-1 -002
a) Slovakia / b) Constitutional Court / c) Panel / d) 26.03.1997/e) II. US8/97/f) Petition from the Attorney-General of the Slovak Republic / g) Zbierka zakonov Slovenskej Republiky (Official Gazette), no. 96/1997 Z.z. in brief; to be published in Zbierka nalezova uzneseni' Ustanveho sudu Slovenskej Republiky (Collection of judgements and decisions of the Constitutional Court) in complete version / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Constitutional Justice - The subject of review – Acts issued by decentralised bodies.
Institutions - Executive bodies - Territorial administrative decentralisation - Municipalities.
Fundamental Rights - Civil and political rights – Right to property - Other limitations.

Keywords of the alphabetical index:
Local self-government, law-making power / Car, immobilisation by police.

Headnotes:
Fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution may not be restricted through "generally binding directives" passed by local self-government bodies.

Summary:
The petitioner, the Attorney-General of the Slovak Republic, brought a petition claiming constitutional conflict between a generally binding directive passed by a local self-government body in Bratislava no. 3/1991 amended by two other generally binding directives, and the Constitution. The generally binding directive authorised the local police to immobilise cars parked "in forbidden places". Articles 20.1 and 20.4 of the Constitution plus Article 68 of the Constitution on self-government authority for law-making were the constitutional provisions allegedly infringed.
According to Article 68 of the Constitution: "In matters of local self-government competence a municipality is vested with power to pass generally binding directives."
The municipality is a legal entity (Article 65 of the Constitution). The local police operating under powers of the municipality is a very different body from the state police which is vested with power to immobilise cars according to the Law On Police Corps of 1993. The municipal police is the "watchdog" of a legal entity - the municipality. This is why the municipal police is also a person established under rules of private law. Not taking into account its name (the police), this body is not vested with the same powers as the state police. The "immobilising power" in the state police was vested through law adopted by parliament. Identical power may not be vested in municipal police through the generally binding ordinance passed by the self-government body because exercise of this power means an interference with the property right guaranteed by Article 20.1 of the Constitution. The right to property is guaranteed amongst the fundamental rights and freedoms according to the Slovak Constitution. Similarly to law-making authority of the executive bodies, any body of self-government has no power to impose restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens. That is why the generally binding directive of 1991 as amended later was held to be unconstitutional.

Languages: Slovak