Pl. US 1/02


The  contested, valid, and still effective § 19 para. 1 of  Act
no. 129/2000 Coll., on Regions, because it does not contain any
statutory bounds for setting conditions for regions' management
of  property  acquired  from the state,  and  thus  establishes
absolute  discretion,  or an opportunity for  arbitrariness  by
state  bodies  in setting them, is inconsistent with  Art.  101
para.  4 of the Constitution, because it makes it possible  for
new  owners to be restricted in their rights, arising from Art.
11  of  the  Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms,  in  a
manner which does not preserve the essence and significance  of
these rights.


The  Plenum  of the Constitutional Court decided on a  petition
from  the fifth panel of the administrative section of the High
Court  in  Prague  to annul § 19 para. 1 of  Act  no.  129/2000
Coll., on Regions (Regional Establishment), as follows:
   The provision of § 19 para. 1 of Act no. 129/2000 Coll.,  on
Regions  (Regional Establishment), is annulled as  of  the  day
this finding is promulgated in the Collection of Laws.


                           REASONING

On  2 January 2002 the Constitutional Court received a petition
from  the fifth panel of the administrative section of the High
Court  in  Prague, in which the petitioner, with  reference  to
Art.  95 para. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (the
"Constitution") seeks the annulment of § 19 para. 1 of Act  no.
129/2000 Coll., on Regions (Regional Establishment), (also  the
"Act  on Regions"), expressed in the words, "The state has  the
right,  in  cases  of uncompensated transfer or  devolution  of
personal property, rights and real estate to the region,  where
there  is  financial  participation in the  obtaining  of  such
property  by  the region, to reserve to itself the  setting  of
conditions   for  further  management  or  handling   of   this
property."
   The  petitioner  stated  that it is conducting  proceedings,
under file no. 5 A 73/01, on an administrative complaint by the
Pilsen  Region  (the  "Region")  against  the  defendant,   the
Ministry  of Education, Youth, and Sports (the "Ministry").  In
the  complaint,  the  Pilsen  Region  seeks  annulment  of   an
administrative act issued under § 1 para. 1 and 2  of  Act  no.
157/2000  Coll., on the Transfer of Certain Things, Rights  and
Obligations  from the Czech Republic to the Regions,  by  which
the  Ministry  transferred to the jurisdiction  of  the  Pilsen
Region things, rights, and obligations which are managed by pre-
school  facilities, schools and school facilities specified  in
appendix  A1 of the cited decision, including these  pre-school
facilities, schools and school facilities, with effect as of  1
April  2001.  This decision simultaneously transferred  to  the
Pilsen  Region real estate listed in appendix B, part  I.A  and
parts B/1 and B/1b of the cited decision, and personal property
listed  in  appendix  B,  part I.B. of  the  decision.  In  the
complaint, the Pilsen Region protested, in particular, that  in
the cited decision, the Ministry, with reference to § 19 of the
Act  on Regions, set four conditions for further management and
handling of the transferred real estate, which restrict it,  as
the  owner, and which it considers unlawful. The conditions set
by  the  Ministry are so broad and restrictive that they exceed
the  authority given to the Ministry by the Act,  because  they
interfere  in  the rights of the region as owner so  much  that
they  paralyze the full exercise of its ownership rights.  This
simultaneously interferes with the Constitutionally  guaranteed
right  to the self-governance by the region, as a higher  self-
governing  territorial unit. In its response to the  complaint,
the Ministry stated that the specified conditions are based  on
§  19  of  the  Act  on Regions and that the Ministry  did  not
violate the Act or exceed its framework. It recognizes that the
conditions  are  restrictive,  but  says  that  the  state   is
responsible  for  creating  appropriate  conditions   for   the
fulfillment  of  the Constitutional right to education,  and  a
change  in the use of properties allocated for education  could
cause serious problems.
   The  High  Court  in  Prague took into account  the  Supreme
Court's  decision of 21 August 2001, file no.  II.  US  326/01,
which  rejected the Pilsen Region's complaint as  inadmissible,
because  the  Region, as complainant, did not exhaust  all  the
means  of  redress  which the law provides  for  protection  of
rights,  that is, it filed a constitutional complaint  when  it
was simultaneously seeking review of the Ministry's decision by
a  course  of  action under § 244 et seq. of  Act  no.  99/1963
Coll., the Civil Procedure Code (the "CPC"). In evaluating  the
administrative complaint in the matter, the High Court  reached
the  conclusion  that § 19 para. 1 of the  Act  on  Regions  is
inconsistent  with  the  constitutional  order  of  the   Czech
Republic,  insofar  as it provides that,  "The  state  has  the
right,  in  cases  of uncompensated transfer or  devolution  of
personal property, rights and real estate to the region,  where
there  is  financial  participation in the  obtaining  of  such
property  by  the region, to reserve to itself the  setting  of
conditions   for  further  management  or  handling   of   this
property,"  without  also specifying the substantive  scope  of
this  state authorization, i.e. the scope and manner of setting
conditions  by  which the state (a state body) will  be  bound.
Therefore it interrupted proceedings on the matter under §  109
para.  1  let.  c) of the CPC and submitted the matter  to  the
Constitutional Court with a petition to annul the provision  in
question.
   The  petitioner, with reference to Art. 2 para. 3,  Art.  8,
Art. 99, Art. 101 para. 3 and 4 of the Constitution and Art.  2
para. 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms  (the
"Charter")   argues   that  a  region  manages   its   property
independently, and it is precisely this management on  its  own
account and own responsibility which is the attribute of  self-
government. Therefore, the state may interfere with  the  right
to  self-government only if this is necessary  to  protect  the
law,  and only in a manner provided by law. The Act on  Regions
specifies a region's obligations in managing property and  also
specifies the manner of inspection of management, in  §  17  et
seq.  Moreover, in contrast to the provision on  inspection  of
management, the law, in § 19 of the cited Act, establishes  the
right  of  the  state  to  reserve  to  itself,  in  cases   of
uncompensated  transfer  or devolution  of  personal  property,
rights  and real estate to the region, where there is financial
participation in the obtaining of such property by the  region,
conditions for further management or handling of this property.
The  petitioner acknowledges the state's interest  in  securing
education and the need to materially and financially secure the
cited  interest,  and also the possibility  for  the  state  to
intervene in the self-government of municipalities and  regions
and  impose  on them binding obligations aimed at securing  the
right  to  education.  Of course, it must  specify  the  cases,
limits,  and  methods of that intervention. In the petitioner's
opinion,  § 19 of the Act on Regions only specifies cases  when
the  state can reserve to itself the setting of conditions, but
does  not  specify  limits  or  methods  for  such  setting  of
conditions.   Thus,  the  state  may  impose  any   obligations
whatsoever  on a region, and, in addition, penalize failure  to
fulfill  them.  The petitioner considers this situation  to  be
inconsistent with the constitutional order, in particular  with
Art. 2 para. 3 of the Constitution of the CR, under which state
authority is to serve all citizens and may be asserted only  in
cases, within the bounds, and in a manner provided by law,  and
with  Art.  101  para. 4 of the Constitution of the  CR,  under
which  the  state may intervene in the affairs  of  territorial
self-governing units only if it is required to protect the law,
and in a manner specified by law.
    The  petitioner  further  stated,  with  reference  to  the
abovementioned Constitutional Court decision, file no.  II.  US
326/01,  that  in  this  matter it is entitled  to  review  the
lawfulness  of the decision contested by the complaint,  within
the  bounds given by the complaint, i.e. whether the conditions
no.  2-4  have been imposed in accordance with the law [2)  the
requirement  of  prior written consent from  the  Ministry  for
changing  the  purpose  of  use of real  estate,  or  parts  or
components  thereof,  outside  the  framework  of   the   first
condition,  for  their  sale,  exchange,  giving  as  a   gift,
contribution to the assets of another person, or burdening by a
lien,  or  for lending or renting the real estate, or parts  or
components thereof, for a period greater than one year; 3)  the
obligation  to  return as a gift to the state, i.e.  if  it  is
impossible to use the real estate according to condition no.  1
and  if consent is refused for a change in its use, or for  the
sale, exchange, giving as a gift, or contribution to the assets
of  another  person, the region's obligation to submit  to  the
Ministry, within 90 days from the refusal of consent,  a  draft
gift  agreement  giving such real estate to the  state;  4)  if
consent  to  lending or renting under condition no.  2  is  not
given, the region's obligation to submit, within 90 days  after
the  refusal  of consent, a draft agreement, confirmed  by  the
region as the lender, on the lending of this real estate to the
benefit  of  the Ministry or another person specified  by  it].
With  regard to the abovementioned text of § 19 para. 1 of  the
Act  on  Regions,  the petitioner concluded  that  a  statutory
provision  under which the court could decide on the lawfulness
of  the  specifically provided conditions is lacking.  In  this
situation the administrative office has no statutory boundaries
for  setting conditions, and thus, logically, does not  violate
the  law by setting any kind of conditions at all, except cases
where  conditions are absurd, outside the logic of the  matter,
and  so  on.  The administrative office's absolute  discretion,
understood  thus, is, in the petitioner's opinion, inconsistent
with  the  Constitution. Of course, if  the  petitioner,  as  a
judicial body, in the absence of a statutory framework for  the
limits  and manner of setting conditions, agreed to review  the
lawfulness  of  a  decision, found it only in relation  to  the
Act's  general provisions, the aim and purpose of  establishing
regions,  and  the  grounds for the transfer or  devolution  of
state  property to these public law corporations, and attempted
by  interpretation to replace something the legislature did not
expressly incorporate in the Act and by which it did  not  bind
the  executive  power, it would, in this case, appropriate  for
itself  a  role which does not belong to it, the  role  of  the
legislature,  whereby it would also violate  the  principle  of
separation of powers.
   In  conclusion,  the  petitioner  states  that  the  current
framework,  which  permits the discretionary setting  of  quite
different conditions for managing transferred property,  or  in
connection  with  the  devolution  of  property  or   financial
participation in the obtaining of such property,  is  not  only
inconsistent  with  the "foreseeability of  a  decision,"  but,
above  all,  inconsistent with the principle of equality.  With
regard  to  Art.  100  para.  1, 101  para.  3  and  4  of  the
Constitution,  a  statutory  framework  may  not  establish  an
opportunity  for  non-uniform, unlimited  intervention  by  the
estate  or arbitrariness in setting conditions, but there  must
be  a  statutory  framework for the limits and manner  of  such
intervention which is equally valid for all cases of  the  same
kind  and ensures the same conditions for handling the property
in  question in all regions, and all regions will be  equal  in
terms  of  the  limitations placed on their activities  by  the
state.
  The Constitutional Court requested, under § 69 para. 1 of Act
no. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended  by
later regulations, position statements on the petition from the
Chamber  of  Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament  of  the
Czech Republic, as parties.
   The Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament of
the  Czech Republic (the "Chamber of Deputies"), Vaclav  Klaus,
stated about the petition, that the legislative assembly  acted
in  the belief that the statute passed was consistent with  the
Constitution, the constitutional order and the legal order.  He
referred  to the background report to the government's proposed
draft  of  the Act on Regions, under which "the Act shall  also
provide  conditions under which it will be possible to  dispose
of property acquired with state participation. The jurisdiction
of the Ministry of Finance will make it possible to inspect the
handling of state funds provided to the region for the exercise
of   state   administration."  He  considers  the  petitioner's
interpretation to be self-serving. The petitioner is not taking
into  account  the  state's  tasks  in  the  area  of  securing
education,  nor  the  fact that the state  must  take  care  to
materially  and  financially secure  the  right  to  education.
Therefore, it is entitled by the Act to intervene in the sphere
of   self-government  decision  making  by  municipalities  and
regions.  The state is also required to take into  account  the
specific  conditions  and  needs  of  individual  regions.  The
original  government draft required the acquisition of property
by  regions to have the prior consent of the state. The version
passed  by  the Chamber of Deputies gives regions the guarantee
that,  if  the specified conditions are fulfilled,  no  further
state  consent  will  be  necessary to manage  and  handle  the
property.  He also points out that the petition to annul  §  19
para.  1  of  the Act on Regions must be considered unjustified
also because § 19 para. 2 and 3 are expressly bound to it,  and
would  be  ineffective in practice. He believes that the  legal
situation  would  not  be  improved  by  annulling  the   cited
provision.  In conclusion he adds that the Act on  Regions  was
approved,  signed by the appropriate constitutionally-specified
bodies, and duly promulgated.
   The  Chairman of the Senate of the Parliament of  the  Czech
Republic   (the  "Senate"),  Petr  Pithart,  in  his   position
statement   described  the  course  of  the   Senate   approval
proceedings on the Act on Regions. He stated about the  content
of  the  bill  that  §  19 para. 1 of the Act  on  Regions  was
incorporated   into  the  Act  so  that  the   state,   in   an
uncompensated transfer or devolution of property, would  ensure
the  use  of  the property for "publicly beneficial"  purposes,
i.e., in particular where the state has an obligation to secure
some  of  its responsibilities. Of course, in exercising  these
powers, the state should see to it that the limitations applied
were  not  inconsistent with Art. 1 and 4 of the Charter,  i.e.
that the essence and significance of the right to property were
preserved and that the restrictions were not used for  purposes
other  than those for which they were provided. He pointed  out
that, vis-à-vis the party acquiring the property, this is a one-
sided  act which that party can not influence through  its  own
will. In conclusion the Chairman of the Senate stated that  the
petition  filed by the High Court in Prague indicates that  the
Pilsen  Region filed a petition to annul the "entire" decision.
In  the even of its annulment, the state will again become  the
owner of the property cited in the decision, and it can not  be
ruled out that the region's subsidized organizations would,  as
a  consequence of § 2 para. 1 of Act no. 157/2000 Coll., on the
Transfer  of  Certain  Rights and Obligations  from  the  Czech
Republic   to  the  Regions,  again  become  state   subsidized
organizations, with all the related consequences.
  The Constitutional Court first, in accordance with § 68 para.
2  of the Act on the Constitutional Court, reviewed whether the
statute whose provisions are claimed to be unconstitutional  by
the  petitioner  was  passed and issued within  the  bounds  of
constitutionally    provided    jurisdiction    and    in     a
constitutionally   prescribed   manner.   From   the   position
statements of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate,  as  well
as  from  relevant Chamber of Deputies documents  received  and
from   information  about  the  course  of  the   voting,   the
Constitutional  Court determined that the Chamber  of  Deputies
approved the draft of the Act on Regions at its 22nd session on
8  March 2000, when, out of the 183 deputies present, 118 voted
in  favor and 59 were against. The Senate approved the bill  at
its  18th  session  on 12 April 2000. Out of  the  73  senators
present,  45 voted in favor and 22 were against. The  president
of  the CR signed the Act on Regions on 4 May 2000. The Act was
promulgated on 15 May 2000 in the Collection of Laws,  in  part
38  under  number  129/2000 Coll. The Act on Regions  was  thus
passed and issued in the constitutionally prescribed manner and
within  the  bounds of constitutionally provided  jurisdiction,
and  the  rules  provided in Art. 39  para.  1  and  2  of  the
Constitution were observed.
  In the submitted petition, the petitioner seeks the annulment
of § 19 para. 1 of the Act on Regions. Under that provision the
state  has  the  right, in cases of uncompensated  transfer  or
devolution of personal property, rights and real estate to  the
region, where there is financial participation in the obtaining
of  such  property  by  the region, to reserve  to  itself  the
setting  of  conditions for further management or  handling  of
this property.
   In  decision  making under Art. 87 para. 1 let.  a)  of  the
Constitution,  the  Constitutional court determines  –  on  the
substantive  side  – whether the contested  provisions  are  in
accordance  with  the  constitutional  order  (so  that   their
annulment is not necessary) or whether these provisions do  not
conform  to the Constitution. However, it considers a  petition
to  annul  a statute, other legal regulation, or its individual
provisions only on the assumption that the statute, other legal
regulation, or their individual provisions did not cease to  be
valid   before   the   end  of  the  proceedings   before   the
Constitutional  Court.  If  such a  situation  arises  and  the
statute,  other legal regulation, or its individual  provisions
ceased  to  be  valid, the Constitutional Court, in  accordance
with § 67 para. 1 of the Act on the Constitutional Court, stops
the proceedings.
  The Constitutional Court verified that the Act on Regions was
repeatedly  amended.  The  amendment  implemented  by  Act  no.
231/2002  Coll. is relevant for the adjudicated petition.  This
amendment annulled, among other things, the entire § 19  (point
30). The petitioner's submitted petition seeks the annulment of
the  first paragraph of § 19. This Act was duly approved by the
Chamber  of  Deputies  on 26 March 2002.  The  Senate  did  not
discuss the bill. On 17 May 2002 the Act was delivered  to  the
president  of  the  CR, who signed it on 23 May  2002.  It  was
promulgated  in the Collection of Laws, in part 87, distributed
4  June  2002, with the provision that it was to go into effect
on  1  January 2003, with the exception of points  26  and  79,
which, however, do not relate to the contested provision.
   In this situation the Constitutional Court was forced to ask
whether  it  can make a decision in the matter, or whether  the
procedure under § 67 para. 1 of Act no. 182/1993 Coll., on  the
Constitutional  Court,  comes  into  consideration,  that   is,
stopping  the proceedings, i.e. whether the statutory provision
which is proposed to be annulled ceased to be valid before  the
end of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
   The  reason for inadmissibility of a petition in proceedings
to   review   of  norms,  or  the  reason  for  stopping   such
proceedings, is, according to the valid legal framework, that a
legal regulation is not valid, not that it is not in effect. In
this  regard,  the contested § 19 para. 1 of Act  no.  129/2000
Coll.  (the  "Act on Regions") must be viewed  as  a  provision
which is, as of the date of the Constitutional Court's decision
making,  valid  and  in effect, and part  of  which  is  to  be
repealed  as  of  1 January 2003. Therefore, the  High  Court's
petition must be considered admissible, all the more so because
in  finding  Pl. US 33/2000 the Constitutional Court  expressed
the opinion that if a court, pursuant to Art. 95 para. 2 of the
Constitution,  submits for evaluation a  statute  which  is  no
longer  valid,  it  is appropriate to give  a  verdict  on  the
constitutionality of that statute.
   After taking into account the consent of the parties to  the
proceedings   that  the  petition  be  decided   without   oral
proceedings,  the  Constitutional  Court,  deliberated  on  the
matter as follows:
   One  of the basic attributes of self-government is the right
of self-governing units to manage their property independently,
on  their own account and their own responsibility. The content
of  the  ownership  right is the owner's authority  to  hold  a
thing,  use it, use its fruits and income, as well as authority
to  dispose  of  a thing. The right to dispose of  a  thing  is
considered central. However, as is indicated by this particular
case,  during  the  review of which the High  Court  in  Prague
stopped  the proceedings and submitted § 19 para. 1 of the  Act
on Regions to the Constitutional Court for review, on the basis
of  that provision, in some cases, or by some Ministries,  this
right  to the acquired property is restricted in such a  manner
as  makes the self-governing regions more the administrators of
someone  else's property than owners. One must agree  with  the
petitioner that a situation where the state feels authorized to
impose  obligations  on  self-governing  regions  through   any
conditions whatsoever, and, moreover, penalizes the failure  to
fulfill them with considerable fines, is inconsistent with Art.
101  para.  4  of the Constitution, under which the  state  may
state  may  interfere with the activities of territorial  self-
governing units only if it is required to protect the law,  and
only  in  a  manner  provided by law. However,  the  contested,
valid,  and  effective § 19 para. 1 of the Act on Regions  does
not contain any statutory boundaries for setting conditions for
managing  the acquired property, and thus establishes  absolute
discretion, or rather an opportunity for arbitrariness by state
bodies in setting them. This state of affairs makes it possible
that in cases which are the same, the same procedures need  not
be  followed, the possible future decision by state  bodies  is
unforeseeable, and its consequences may seriously violated  the
equality  of  self-governing  entities  to  which  property  is
transferred  or  to which it devolves. In that case  the  steps
taken  by the state are fundamentally different from the  steps
when transferring property to municipalities which acquired  it
by  devolution directly from Act no. 172/1991 Coll.,  and  that
Act   did   not   specify  any  further  conditions   for   the
municipalities' management of the property thus  acquired,  nor
did  it subject the devolution to any decision by central state
government bodies with the ability to set conditions.
   Apart  from the abovementioned reservations, the  valid  and
effective  text  of  § 19 para. 1 of the Act  on  Regions  also
raises  doubts  in  terms of legal theory  and  accepted  legal
terminology,  when  it places under the same  regime  both  the
transfer  and  the  devolution of property. The  devolution  of
property happens on the basis of a legal fact, in this case Act
no.  157/2000 Coll., on the Transfer of Certain Things,  Rights
and   Obligations  from  the  CR  to  the  Regions,  that   is,
independently  of  the  will  of  the  entity.  In  that  case,
conditions for managing such property can be set only  by  law,
and not by an administrative office. However, the cited Act  on
the  transfer of property does not set any conditions connected
with  this  devolution. It regulates only the formal requisites
of  future  administrative decisions,  and  §  4  is  the  only
provision  which  can be considered ex lege to restrict  future
owners  to  a  certain extent; under § 4, where  a  restitution
claim  was  or  will be made, the region becomes the  obligated
party  under  special  regulations.  On  the  other  hand,  the
transfer  of ownership happens by agreement, and in  this  two-
sided  act  one can undoubtedly also agree on other conditions.
This confusion of concepts then continues in § 19 para. 2 and 3
of  the  Act  on  Regions,  which  penalize  the  violation  of
obligations  imposed  under  para. 1  without  differentiation,
although  such  penalizing would only come  into  consideration
with the violation of obligations or conditions provided with a
transfer  of  ownership  ex lege, whereas  such  penalties  can
hardly  stand  if  the  region, as a  public  law  corporation,
entered  into a contract on the transfer of property  with  the
state. In such a case, penalties can only be agreed upon in the
contract.
   The  abovementioned problems were apparently  known  to  the
government,  which, in the proposed amendment  of  the  Act  on
Regions proposed a different text of § 19, which, however,  was
ultimately not accepted by the legislative assembly,  and  that
section  was  deleted from the final version of the  Act  (with
effect  as of 1 January 2003). However, the general section  of
the  background  report  indicates  that  the  purpose  of  the
amendment of the Act on Regions (no. 231/2002 Coll.) is,  among
other  things, to expand the jurisdiction of the regions, which
is  necessary so that the regions to can completely fulfill the
mission  which  belongs  to  them,  as  significant  bodies  of
territorial self-government, under the Constitution of the  CR.
Insofar as the legislature, by Act no. 231/2002 Coll., annulled
the  entire  §  19  of  the  Act on Regions,  in  view  of  the
circumstances  this  can be considered  an  expression  of  its
recognition  that  the construction of § 19 did  not  meet  the
constitutional requirements arising from Art. 101  para.  4  of
the  Constitution, and that its generality and uncertainty  did
not  meet the elements of foreseeability, sufficient precision,
and  clarity which define the concept of a "statute" in a state
governed by the rule of law. By not meeting the cited elements,
§ 19 clearly did not provide the affected parties (the regions)
sufficient  protection against the caprice or arbitrariness  of
the state power. Thus, the contested provision made it possible
for  new owners to be restricted in their rights, arising  from
Art. 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, in a
manner which does not preserve the essence and significance  of
these rights, and is therefore inconsistent with Art. 4 para. 4
of  the  Charter. This situation would also not  be  consistent
with  the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which  was
included  in the legal order of the CR by notification  of  the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, no. 181/1999 Coll., with effect as
of  1 September 1999. Under Art. 8 of the European Charter, any
administrative review of self-governing societies can  only  be
conducted as prescribed by the Constitution or a statue.
   For all the abovementioned reasons, the Constitutional Court
granted  the petition of the High Court in Prague, and annulled
§  19  para. 1 of the Act on Regions as of the day this finding
is promulgated in the Collection of Laws.
   The  Constitutional  Court  also  considered  annulling  the
related  para. 2 a 3 § 19 of the Act on Regions, aware  of  the
fact that in finding Pl. US 15/01, published under no. 424/2001
Coll.,  it expressed an opinion which would permit such a  step
even  without  a  petition. In that finding the  Constitutional
Court  said  that  in a situation where, as  a  consequence  of
annulling  a  certain  statutory provision  another  provision,
separate  in  content from the one annulled,  loses  reasonable
purpose,   i.e.  loses  the  justification  for  its  normative
existence,  grounds  exist for also annulling  that  provision,
without  this being a procedure ultra petitum. In view  of  the
fact  that this basically technical derogation occurred through
the  abovementioned amendment of the Act on Regions, which will
go  into  effect  on  1 January 2003, the Constitutional  Court
limited itself in this specific case only to annulling the  key
provision which was expressly contested, that is, § 19 para.  1
of the Act on Regions.

Notice:  Decisions  of  the Constitutional  Court  can  not  be
appealed.

Brno, 13 August 2002