The subject of the opinion is providing answer to a question whether, in a view of the indicated Constitutional Tribunal’s judgement, a housing cooperative has the right to deprive a pending person – who paid housing contribution in the shape of saved cash from a housing passbook on account of a flat – of membership of the cooperative. It flows from the Constitutional Tribunal’s judgement that only such natural persons who are entitled to cooperative tenant law for the apartment, cooperative ownership law for the apartment, separate ownership or the promise of separate ownership can be members of the housing cooperative. Admission to the housing cooperative of a person, who does not possess one of the rights indicated in the judgement is not admissible.
The proposed regulation, which provides for ex lege deduction of ownership of a movable property belonging to a local government entity, requires consideration in terms of constitutional protection of communal property and the principle of self-government autonomy of local government units. The Act on the Protection and Care of Monuments allows a permanent removal of a monument on the basis of an appropriate permit, provided that the object has no particular value for cultural heritage, which is the case here. The bill thus sets a precedent by allowing the export of a relic of the past and its transfer to another country.
The author presents constitutional and statutory provisions guaranteeing gender equality and the prohibition of gender discrimination. Promotion, dissemination and propagation of equal treat‑ ment issues, also in the field of gender equality, are the tasks of the Government’s Plenipotentiary for Equal Treatment. Attention was paid to compliance with gender equality principles in, inter alia, education, labour law, public life, health care and business. The implementation of EU legislation in this area was analysed.
The Act on Maintaining Cleanliness and Order in Communes provides the basis for choosing the method of determining the fee based on several criteria. It also states that a communal council may apply various criteria differentiating the rates of payment. According to the current case law of the Supreme Administrative Court, the communal council has no right to introduce an additional criterion – within the chosen method of determining the fee – i.e. a division of households into categories depending on the number of tenants. Though, it cannot be excluded that there is a possibility to differentiate the fee calculated as a product of the number of tenants in the given real estate and the sum of the fee when applying the number of tenants as a criterion of differentiation. It has to be stressed that the stance of acceptance of such differentiation may be questioned by supervisory authorities.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.