Decision No. 7 of 27 June 2017 on Constitutional Case No. 2/2017
Referring Authority and Subject Matter of the Case
The case was initiated upon a request submitted by a three-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The subject matter of the case is the constitutionality of the provisions of Article 40, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Health Insurance Act (HIA), in the part concerning pensioners registered as self-employed persons exercising a liberal profession and/or craft activity, by reference to Article 4, paragraph 3, item 1 of the Social Security Code (SSC). It is argued in the request that the provisions are unconstitutional due to inconsistency with the fundamental principle of equality of citizens before the law (Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Constitution), Article 60, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, and the right to property under Article 17 of the Constitution, in the context of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning
The partially contested provision of Article 40, paragraph 1, item 2 of the HIA establishes the method for determining the health insurance contributions due by the persons referred to in Article 4, paragraph 3, items 1, 2 and 4 of the SSC. The group of persons obliged to pay contributions also includes citizens registered as self-employed persons exercising a liberal profession and/or craft activity. The legislature has referred to all persons who derive income from labour, without distinguishing between those who receive a pension and those who have not acquired such entitlement.
For persons included in the system of mandatory pension insurance, the social security objective is achieved upon acquisition of the right to a pension. However, this does not apply to those included in the system of mandatory health insurance, since the risk of deterioration in human health persists throughout a person’s entire life, regardless of whether they are a pensioner or have not yet acquired that status, and irrespective of whether they earn income from employment or are not economically active. The Constitutional Court finds no basis to accept the applicant’s argument that, by introducing an obligation for working pensioners - particularly those exercising a liberal profession and/or craft activity - to pay health insurance contributions, the legislature has in fact imposed a tax. Consequently, Article 60 of the Constitution is not relevant to the subject matter of the case.
The Court holds that the payment of mandatory health insurance contributions affects the property sphere not only of the persons indicated by the applicant, but also of all other categories of persons subject to a similar obligation. These are obligations of a public-law nature, the basis of which is legitimised by the content and spirit of the Constitution. Therefore, in the present case it cannot be accepted that their introduction by law constitutes a violation of the requirement for statutory protection of constitutionally guaranteed inviolable private property (Article 17, paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Constitution).
Grounds for the Ruling and Disposition
Pursuant to Article 149, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Constitution (the competence to rule on requests for a declaration of unconstitutionality of laws), the Constitutional Court rejects the request submitted by a three-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court for a declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 40, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Health Insurance Act, in the part concerning working pensioners registered as self-employed persons exercising a liberal profession and/or craft activity, by reference to Article 4, paragraph 3, item 1 of the Social Security Code.