The Constitutional Court annulled part of the decree on the municipal waste fee
The Constitutional Court examined a municipal ordinance of the town of Krásná Lípa, which established a payment for the municipal waste management system and at the same time provided an across-the-board relief to local citizens (persons registered for residence). In the part in question, the Constitutional Court annulled it for contravention of Article 104(1) and (3) of the Constitution and Article 11(5) of the Charter. According to the Court, the City had impermissibly imposed feesoutside the limits set by the mandatory provisions of the Local Fees Act.
What were the Constitutional Court's reasons for this? Why did the three judges disagree with the decision? What is the significance of the decision for municipal lawmaking?
Author of the article: ARROWS (JUDr. Tereza Snopková, Ph.D., office@arws.cz, +420 245 007 740)
First of all, it should be recalled that municipalities are obliged to ensure a system of municipal waste management, i.e. to allow non-business individuals to dispose of waste. At the same time, municipalities have the right (but not the obligation) to introduce a local municipal waste charge and thus collect payment from such persons.
Municipalities may introduce either a charge for the municipal waste management system or a charge for the disposal of municipal waste from immovable property. Both fees are based on the Local Fees Act. While the former is essentially a flat fee for the municipal system, the latter is based on the amount of waste disposed of. The second charge is therefore based on where the taxpayer lives and how much waste they deposit, taking as a basis the weight or volume of waste or the capacity of the waste collection facilities.
So what did the ordinance of the town of Krásná Lípa bring?
The city introduced a local fee for the municipal waste management system (i.e. a flat fee) by Ordinance No. 2/2021, in the amount of CZK 1,100. At the same time, the decree addressed a situation that is fairly typical of many other recreational areas. The municipality concerned is faced with the fact that local residents (registered residents) pay a 'per capita' fee, while holidaymakers (or owners of properties without permanent residents) pay only one payment per property. The City argued that "vacationers" who pay only per property contribute more to the actual amount of municipal waste in the City, generating more waste than local citizens. Therefore, an exemption (relief) of CZK 440 was introduced for all taxpayers - individuals registered in the municipality.
What did the Constitutional Court say?
The Constitutional Court argued in the case that the modification of the local municipal waste fee, which negates the basic mechanism of the selected fee scheme, contradicts the mandatory provisions of the Local Fees Act. According to the Constitutional Court, the legislation of the Local Fee Act enables the city to achieve the desired objectives. If the City of Krásná Lípa wanted to achieve a better reflection of how much waste is actually generated by whom, it should in principle have used a fee scheme for the disposal of waste from immovable property. By disregarding that option and by changing the statutory parameters of the local municipal waste management system fee by the challenged ordinance provision, the City acted unreasonably.
Fee revenue is the municipality's own resource
The three judges took a different position on the Constitutional Court ruling under discussion . According to the dissenting judges, the town of Krásná Lípa could not have violated the Local Fees Act, because it did not introduce two types of fees (which would be impermissible), it only used the legal right to "adjust the relief on the fee". According to the dissent, the Constitutional Court ultimately did not address the issue of equality or impermissible discrimination leading to a violation of fundamental rights or freedoms. Critics of the ruling argue that the statutory regulation has been interpreted inadequately and in a restrictive manner to the detriment of the municipality's constitutionally guaranteed right to self-government.
According to the dissenters, the town of Krásná Lípa did not go beyond the limits of self-government. The ordinance issued did not exceed the statutory powers of municipalities. The town of Krásná Lípa also respected the legally defined range of subjects of the municipal waste fee and its maximum amount.
The dissenting judges point out that the Constitutional Court cannot annul a legal regulation simply because it considers its interpretation or the motivation for its adoption to be inadmissible. The only grounds for annulment may be a conflict with the constitutional order or (in the case of subordinate legislation) with the law.
They also recall that a municipality is entitled to decide independently on the management of its property. At the same time, it may in some way favour its citizens and thus support the personnel substrate as one of the essential components of the existence of a public corporation. It is a matter for the municipality to determine how it sets up its revenues to cover the related expenses. The decision as to how high and how set the levy should be is therefore a political decision of themunicipality itself, taken by its democratically legitimised representative body, the municipal council.
Municipal standard-setting - legal support
On the question of the relevance of the Constitutional Court's decision for municipal law-making, it should be noted that the text of a particular proposed ordinance must always be assessed in a number of respects. Unfortunately, the annotated decision of the Constitutional Court, accompanied by the dissenting opinions of three judges, does not provide clear answers. The case-law may therefore not always be entirely appropriate for dealing with another specific case. As a general rule, the activities of a municipality must not infringe guaranteed rights and freedoms, discriminate or exceed the right to self-government.
In the context of municipal waste payments, it is also worth recalling the ruling of 4 June 2019, Case No. Pl. ÚS 48/18, in which the Constitutional Court accepted, within the framework of the fee obligation in connection with the payment for waste management , the advantage of persons residing in the municipality of Milovice, if it is done within the limits of the autonomous competence for legitimate reasons and in a proportionate manner.
How to deal with the situation? A legal analysis of the specific situation, taking into account the specific needs, can help to find a reasonable and legitimate solution. By carefully drafting the ordinance with knowledge of the legislation(and, in the alternative, case law), the municipality can avoid potential disputes with both the inspection authorities and the persons concerned.