On November 4, 2020, the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic issued a press release providing information on the key findings from the closed-door plenary session of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic held on November 4, 2020. The law firm Hronček & Partners, s. r. o. presents a summary of the most important decisions from this session.
In a closed session, the Constitutional Court ruled on the following matters:
- In case no. PL.ÚS 9/2018, it ruled that the provision of Section 82b(2) of Act No. 461/2003 Coll., the Social Insurance Act, is inconsistent with Article 39(1) and Article 12(1), (2), and (4) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. For the sake of completeness, we also provide the text of the provision under review, which reads as follows: “The amount of the minimum pension of a recipient of an old-age pension who is or was a saver under a special regulation,1) shall be reduced in the same manner as the amount of the old-age pension is reduced under Section 66(6); only the period specified in paragraph 4 shall be counted toward the period of participation in old-age pension savings.”
- In Case No. PL. ÚS 27/2020, the Constitutional Court ruled that it accepts for further proceedings the motion of the President of the Slovak Republic to initiate proceedings on the conformity of the provision of Section 58(5) of Act No. 355/2007 Coll. on the Protection, Support, and Development of Public Health with the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and, at the same time, suspends the effectiveness of this provision. The provision in question reads as follows, quote: “The right to compensation for damages and lost profits arising from the implementation of measures under this Act that affect an indefinite number of persons is excluded.” However, the aforementioned decision of the Constitutional Court does not in itself prejudge the final decision on the provision’s inconsistency with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court will rule on its possible inconsistency at its next session.
- In Case No. PL. ÚS 14/2020, it ruled that the provision of Section 102c(3) of Act No. 578/2004 Coll. on Healthcare Providers, Healthcare Professionals, and Professional Organizations in Healthcare, which reads as follows, quote:
“The following shall be excluded from enforcement under a special regulation until December 31, 2020:
a) assets administered by a state organization established under a special regulation for the provision of healthcare and not transferred under a special regulation as of the effective date of this Act,
b) assets of a non-profit organization that was established through a transformation under a special regulation from the state organization referred to in subparagraph a),
c) municipal assets administered by a budgetary or subsidized organization established to provide healthcare,
d) assets of a self-governing region administered by a budgetary or contributory organization established to provide health care,
e) funds in the accounts of the organizations referred to in subparagraphs (a) through (d) and funds intended for the organizations referred to in subparagraphs (a) through (d) for the provision of healthcare, services related to the provision of healthcare, and services related to the organization of healthcare.”
It also ruled that this provision is inconsistent with Article 1(1), Article 12(2) in conjunction with Article 20(1) and Article 46(1) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic
- In Case No. PL. ÚS 18/2017, it ruled that the provision of Section 9(4) of Act No. 669/2007 Coll. on one-time extraordinary measures in the preparation of certain motorway and road construction projects and amending Act No. 162/1995 of the National Council of the Slovak Republic, which reads as follows: “In proceedings concerning an administrative action filed against a decision on preliminary possession, a decision on expropriation, a zoning decision for the construction of a highway, or a building permit for the construction of a highway, the provisions of Sections 185 through 189 of the Administrative Court Procedure Code shall not apply” is inconsistent with Article 46(2) in conjunction with Article 20(1) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and with Article 9(4) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making, and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.
The law firm Hronček & Partners, s. r. o. will also keep you informed of any other important and relevant developments, particularly regarding the Constitutional Court’s proceedings in Case No. PL.ÚS 27/2020.
