Cancellation spa ordinance to the indicator list

The Constitutional Court annulled the spa ordinance

The decision of the Constitutional Court:

April 2, 2014


The Plenum of the Constitutional Court allowed the Group of 21 Senators of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and abolished the expiry on 31 December 2014 Ministry of Health Decree No. 267/2012 Coll., Establishing the list of indications for spa treatment rehabilitation care for adults, children and adolescents (hereafter "spa Decree "). The purpose of the ordinance is to carefully define the conditions under which and the extent to which spa treatment rehabilitation care health services covered by public health insurance. The petitioners mainly contended that the indicator list should be regulated by law or by Annex law and not a mere decree and further suggested that the significant reduction in particular the possibility of repeated treatment, which occurred as a result of the contested regulations, the cause of the decrease usability of the spa facilities and the associated reduction quality spa care that this situation may have a negative impact on the health of citizens. The Constitutional Court of the reasoning stated that the spa treatment rehabilitation care is a form of health care, free of charge, to which a citizen under Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms entitlement, the range can be limited with the power of the norm of law. With regard to the constitutional reservation bill would therefore answer the question, where is the spa medical care covered by public health insurance, or when it must pay for itself, the findings should give particular state of health of the insured directly implementing the law. In the ordinance, however, a limitation imposed duration of the treatment and the possibility of extension or repetition, as well as the limitations of the time period by which the patient must stay in the lineup, respectively  they would have to get on a possible repeat stays, the consequence of these restrictions is that the treatment stay is not in the range that exceeds the specified parameters covered by public health insurance. The Constitutional Court emphasized that the importance of finding a balance between the effectiveness of treatment and its economic viability is indeed legitimate, but its achievement requires a measure not only medical but also economic considerations, which incorporates the need for political decision-making, which reserved the legislature itself. The fact that the Ministry of Health in determining the duration of the treatment and the possibility of his accession, he did the question of political decisions about the extent provided free spa treatment, can be clearly illustrated by the fact that the adoption of the contested decree without any changes in the legal treatment significantly shortened the basic length of treatment stay 28 to 21 days. To determine the limits of the right to free health care under the public health insurance is only possible on the basis of the decision of the Parliament, which does not respect the contested decree. Other petitioners' objections regarding discrepancy § 2 paragraph 2 spa ordinance with non-retroactivity and protection of legitimate expectations and undue interference in the very substance of the rights under Article 31 and Article 26, paragraph 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms Constitutional Court found no reason.
The Constitutional Court postponed the execution of its judgment so that lawmakers created adequate space for the new legislation, as in the immediate annulment of the decree would disappear contained therein economic instruments regulate the provision of hospital spa rehabilitative care, which in extreme cases could lead to destabilization in the health sector care, while significantly reducing the degree of legal certainty regarding the extent to which the provision of this care is covered by public health insurance.
Different opinions on the verdict of the judgment reserved the judges Stanislav Balik, Vladimír Kurka and Michaela Zidlicka, a dissenting opinion to justify reserved Judge Jan Filip.