English Translation

70 was then quickly translated and published on the same day in the daily press. Published in German in the Reich Code RGBl. I/1939, p. 485, Czech and German as Regulation No. 75/1939 in the Collection of Laws and Decrees , pp.373-376. (From the original title Collections was released in this context the designation of the Czech-Slovak Republic and this gap lasted until 20.9.1939, when it was only replaced by the name of the newly formed department: Collection of laws and regulations Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, whose name has not changed until the end of the Protectorates.) Furthermore, the decree was published in the Collection of Regulation for Bohech and Moravu no.2 of 1939, Czech in Official Journal of 1939, p. 775. (152) During the following period of military administration (Militärverwaltung), legislation with effect for the entire Protectorate was issued by the chief commander of the German army (Oberbefehlshaber des Heeres), whose regulations and decrees were largely published in a bilingual in Berlin printed Collection of Regulations for Bohemia and Moravia (Verordnungsblatt für Böhmen und Mähren-VoBlBM, as the "Roman official newspaper" (153), from a smaller part then by radio, in periodic press or with posters (154), and by the head of the civil administration (Chef der Zivilverwaldung) in the army group 3 (Prague) and 5 (Brno) with coverage for them always given territory. In view of the lack of explicit amendment of this question, they published their regulations for Czechs in the Official Letter (Úl) and Moravia in the official letter of the Regional Authority in Brno (UlZúB) or even in the daily press. ((155) For example, the Reich Protector's Regulation of 6 May 1940 on the unauthorized possession of weapons, which was punishable by death (156), the announcement of both civil exceptional conditions, etc. The amount of these regulations directly intervened in matters pertaining to autonomous administration and was issued regardless of the applicable law. Their large part went even further than could be explained only by reasons of effectiveness, which are usually the benchmark for the limits given by the initiative of the occupying authorities, e.g. the regulation introducing bilingualism (157) or limiting the property disposition of citizens and organisations. In addition, some of these normative acts were not delivered to the Protectorate's Government for proper printing in established publishing instruments. Others were not learned about the relevant protectorate sites until considerable delay. (158)