Source: https://www.usoud.cz/en/decisions/20120131-pl-us-512-slovak-pensions-1/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:07:08+00:00

Document:
the Supreme Administrative Court of 31 August 2011, ref. no.
judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 31 August 2011, ref.
of 8 February 2008, ref. no. 450 811 075/428, are annulled.
judicial and other legal protection under Art. 36 of the Charter.
Railways, again as an engineer.
Social Security Administration, pursuant to § 29 let. a) of Act no.
to the total period of insurance in all member states.
Constitutional Court’s case law (in particular, judgments file no. II.
par. 2 of the Charter.
Justice of the European Union (the “ECJ”) for a preliminary ruling.
pension insurer, and for all ordinary courts.
22 June 2011, C-399/09, according to the cited judgments file no. Pl.
the European Union decision of 22 June 2011, C-399/09.
Supreme Administrative Court did not find any arguments for applying it.
and with its intentions. In this regard he refers to judgment file no.
Republic’s entry into the European Union.
ensue from it for a supplementary payment to an old age pension.
judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 31 August 2011, file no.
discrimination under Art. 1 a Art. 3 par. 1 of the Charter.
25/2010-146, and 3 Ads 130/2008-204).
judges of the relevant panel and of the parties to the proceeding.
ref. no. Pl. ÚS 5/12-1.
greater detail, a hearing in this matter was waived.
accordance with the legal rules of the Czech Republic.
remaining (Case of 26 January 1999, Terhoeve, C-18/95,  ECR I-345, paragraph 57, and the case law cited).
two requirements should be deprived of such a payment.
50/04, Pl. ÚS 66/04, Pl. ÚS 19/08, and Pl. ÚS 29/09.
functioning, and object are directly connected to Community law.
identity and exceeding the scope of the entrusted competences.
judgment of 22 June 2011, C-399/09 on the present case.
Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 629/2006 of 5 April 2006.
date of dissolution o the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.
par. 1 of the Charter (see file no. II. ÚS 405/02, III. ÚS 252/04, IV.
the Constitutional Court merely stated that “[i]nsofar as Act no.
abandoning the principle audiatur et altera pars.
fundamental rights and freedoms involves several components (file no.
and application of substantive law.
directly applicable provisions of international treaties.
constitutionality of the relationship of § 61 of Act no. 155/1995 Coll.
Republic and the Slovak Republic on Social Security, published as no.
issue of application of the Agreement in its decisions file no.
of 1 January 1993 by the dissolution of the joint Czechoslovak state.
which Act no. 428/2011 Coll. was published, was distributed.
benefit are not governed by any legislation. Thus, § 106a of Act no.
prohibition on payment of social benefits that is not governed by law.
reason for the law ceases to exist, the law itself ceases to exist).
concerning § 106a of Act no. 155/1995 Coll., as amended by Act no.
which the decisions contested by the constitutional complaint arose.
Instruction: This judgment cannot be appealed.
which I refer in full.
I do not consider correct the conclusion that European law, i.e.
cases analogous to the complainant’s is an overreaching by an EU body.
Annex III remain applicable [Art. 7 par. 2 let. c)]. The content of Art.
became EU law, and is a provision that is binding for all member states.
discriminate against nationals of other member states.
receives contradictory instructions, which is it bound to observe.

References: Art. 36
 § 29
 Art. 1
 Art. 3
 § 61
 § 106
 § 106