Source: https://www.usoud.cz/en/decisions/20011016-pl-us-501-milk-quota-regulation-1/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 09:56:12+00:00

Document:
Constitutional Court has already ruled in judgment no. 96/2001 Coll.
those to whom it is addressed.
farm production, distribution or consumption.
human rights and freedoms and fair proceedings within that framework.
Art. 4 para. 4 of the Charter.
basis of and within the bounds of law” (Art. 4 para. 1 of the Charter).
the fundamental right to own property.
Imposing penalty levies can not be considered expropriation or forced limitation of property rights.
sense the objection of inequality is unjustified.
of 31 December 2001, § 4 para. 2 and § 14 para. 2 government decree no.
The rest of the petition is denied.
primarily claim that the penalty levies – introduced by § 13 of Act No.
required to apply for allocation of a production quota.
Supreme Administrative Court of the CSR in the judgment file no. Boh.
the Protocol to the Convention.
apply for allocation of production quotas.
(limitations on) the fundamental right to conduct business are at issue.
imposed in conflict with Art. 4 of the Charter.
is not yet a member of the European Union.
Constitutional Court deny in full the petition of the group of deputies.
refers to EC Council directives no. 3950/92, no. 1255/99 and no.
to regulate the use of property in accordance with the public interest.
do business exclusively in dairy farming from § 2 para. 5 of Act No.
particular forms of agriculture, in this case “ecological” agriculture.
the petition to annul government decree no. 445/2000 Coll. be denied. . .
for proceedings before the Constitutional Court had been met.
In this regard it states that, under § 64 para. 2 let. b) of Act No.
decree “to implement statutes and remaining within their bounds” (Art.
empowered by statute” (Art. 79 para. 3 of the Constitution of the CR).
that the contested decree diverges from the bounds set by Act No.
evident (room must be made for the sphere of regulation).
to deduce the clear legislative intent in the above mentioned sense.
obligations of those to whom it is addressed.
to be neither unconstitutional nor unlawful.
constitutional act, a statute or an international agreement under Art.
legal regulation and not its appropriateness or suitability to its aim.
e.g. the existence of a free market and so on (see below).
states which contractually liberalize their mutual trade in goods (e.g.
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade).
those for which they were laid down.
community law, as provided and required (though not expressly) by Art.
Czech Republic, of the other part of 1993 (no.7/1995 Coll.).
relevant to the Constitutional Court’s decision making.
or international agreements on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
interpretation of the relevant provision of the Charter (Art. 26 para.
anything about the substance of doing business in milk production.
only be possible to continue it for a transitional period.
to ensure separate public interest, often parallel or even conflicting.
legislative activity only if it finds it to be unconstitutional.
regulation of the milk market in European Union member states.
democratic western European countries (see Council Directive no.
European and universal standard of human rights.
proportionate from a constitutional viewpoint.
obviously cannot be given by the Constitutional Court.
regulated in Act No. 256/2000 Coll. and not in the contested decree.
is not a barrier to an important public interest.
allocation of production quotas represents an analogous mechanism, e.g.
objection of inequality is unjustified.
allocating further production quotas or reducing them.
stage of issuing a sub-statutory implementing regulation.
provided by § 4 para. 2 of the contested decree.
thus in conflict with Art. 4 para. 1 and 2 of the Charter.
Art. 79 para. 3 of the Constitution of the CR.
for necessary measures and adjustments.
The Constitutional Court denied the remaining part of the petition to annul the contested government decree.
Instruction: Decisions of the Constitutional Court can not be appealed.
of the Charter (a fundamental component of which is ius disponendi).
used and the aims pursued.
principle see Constitutional Court judgments file nos. Pl. US 4/94, Pl.
Charter, in connection with Art. 11 para. 1 of the Charter.
Art. 78 of the Constitution.
thinking (see P. A. Samuelson - W. Nordhaus, Economics, Prague 1991).
specialis to the Act on Prices.
matter under file no. Pl. US 3/2000.
constitutional safeguards for limitation on property rights under Art.
property rights, see, in particular, Constitutional Court judgment Pl.
property and the related limitation of property rights.
constitutional order of the Czech Republic is based.
European standards contained in Community law..

References: Art. 4
 § 4
 § 14
 § 13
 Art. 4
 § 2
 § 64
 § 4
 Art. 4

Art. 79
 Art. 11

Art. 78