The emerging Czech Constitutional doctrine of European law

European Constitutional Law Review

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 418-435

  Zemánek, Jiří ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Constitutional status of community law; Czech Republic; Implementation; Judicial review; National constitutional law; Necessitated implementing provisions; Primacy; Third pillar law

Indexed keywords

EID: 37449026033     PISSN: 15740196     EISSN: 17445515     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S157401960700418X     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Art. 2 of the Act Concerning the Conditions of Accession of the Czech Republic ... and the Adjustments to the Treaties on Which the European Union is Founded, OJ [2003] C 227.
2. For an excellent analysis of that path dependence see: Zdenek Kühn, 'The Application of European Law in the New Member States: Several (Early) Predictions', German Law Journal (2005), p. 565 et seq., as well as:
3. Zdenek Kühn, 'Worlds Apart: Western and Central European Judicial Culture at the Onset of the European Enlargement', American Journal of Comparative Law (2004), p. 531.
4. Michal Bobek, 'A New or a Non-Existent Legal Order? Some (Early) Experience in the Application of EU Law in Central Europe', Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy (2006), p. 289.
5. Jiri Zemanek, 'The Constitutional Courts in the New Member States and the Uniform Application of European Law', in Ingolf Pernice, Juliane Kokott, Cheryl Saunders (eds.), The Future of the European Judicial System in Comparative Perspective (Baden-Baden, Nomos 2006), p. 257.
6. Case No. 22 Ca 69/2005 (pending); Michal Bobek, 'The Binding Force of Babel. The Enforcement of EC Law Unpublished in the Languages of the New Member States', EUI Working Papers Law 2007/06.
7. Decision of 16 Oct. 2001, case No. Pl. US 5/01 Milk Quota (published as No. 410/2001 Coll.); cf. also decision of 6 March 2002, case No. Pl. US 11/01 Czech Railway Act (published as No. 144/2002 Coll.); decision of 20 June 2001, case No. Pl. US 59/00 Czech National Bank Act (published as No. 278/2001 Coll.); decision of 29 May 1997, case No. III US 31/97 Skoda Auto.
8. Case No. Pl. US 11/02 (published as No. 198/2003 Coll.).
9. Case No. 25 Cdo 314/99.
10. Cf. decision of the Municipal Court in Prague of 4 Jan. 2005, case No. 8 CA 6/04-24 on financial leasing; decision of the SAdminC of 27 Sept. 2005, case No. 1 Ao 1/2005-98 on transferability of mobile numbers; decision of the SAdminC of 17 Jan. 2006, case No. 6 As 52/2004-67 Czech Airport Administration Agency, where the notion of 'public undertaking' under the Act on free access to information, was interpreted with regard to the Commission 'transparency? Directive No. 80/723 and to the case-law of the ECJ.
11. Decision of 29 Sept. 2005, case No. 2 Afs 92/2005-43.
12. Decision of 19 July 2006, case No. 3 Azs 259/2005-42.
13. Decision of the Municipal Court in Prague of 20 June 2005, case No. 7 A 7/2005, where the Protocol was qualified as lex specialis to the general provision of the Act, avoiding the direct conflict between both.
14. For the commentary see Michal Bobek, supra n. 3, note 40.
15. Decision of 3 June 2003, case No. II. US 405/02; decision of 25 Jan. 2005, case No. III. US 252/04; decision of 4 April 2005, case No. IV. US 158/04.
16. Decision of 19 Feb. 2004, case No. 3 Ads 2/2003-60; decision of 23 Feb. 2005, case No. 6 Ads 62/2003-31.
17. Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, OJ [1971] L 149/2, as amended.
18. ECJ case C-302/04 Ynos.
19. For the detailed analysis of the first experiences of the courts see Alfred E. Kellermann, Jenö Czuczai, Steven Blockmans, Aneli Albi, Wybe Th. Douma (eds.), The Impact of EU Accession on the Legal Orders of New Member States and (Pre-) Candidate Countries. Hopes and Fears (The Hague, T.M.C. Asset Press 2006), in particular Part III.
20. For the most recent critical analysis of the debate see Jiri Malenovsky, 'K nove doktrine Ustavniho soudu CR v otazce vztahu ceskeho, komunitarniho a mezinarodniho prava' [About the new doctrine of the Czech Constitutional Court on the relationship between the Czech, Community and international law], Pravni rozhledy [Legal Horizon] No. 21/2006, p. 774-783.
21. This was another feature of the years following 'the velvet revolution' of 1989, persisting from the past in the lawyers' community across the scene: Not to discuss the current business of the law-/ constitution-maker. Participants to the debate exploited their own sources of information about the relevant legal provisions of the former member states, without being familiar enough with their local legal and jurisdictional contexts. One of the few positive exceptions in this respect was the conference volume 'Ustava a mezinarodni pravo' [Constitution and International Law] (Brno, Masarykova univerzita 1999) and in particular an impetus for a constitutional change, brought by Jiri Malenovsky, 'Komentovany navrh clanku Ustavy České republiky upravujici jeji vztah k mezinarodnimu pravu' [Commented draft articles of the Constitution of the Czech Republic on its relationship to international law] Pravnik [The Lawyer] (1999), p. 385-404, who was inspired by the new Polish Constitution 1997 (Arts. 89-91).
22. Prior to this amendment, Art. 10 of the Constitution stipulated only a limited precedence of international treaties concerning human rights and fundamental freedoms over statutes. This effect has been extended by Constitutional Act No. 395/2001 Coll. on all (self-executing) international treaties and accompanied by the new Art. 10a, which reads as follows: '(1) Certain powers of Czech republic authorities may be transferred by a treaty to an international organization or institution. (2) The ratification of the treaty underparagraph 1 requires the consent of Parliament, unless a constitutional act provides that such ratification requires the approval obtained in referendum.' For the explanation see Jiří Zemánek, 'Czech Republic' (national report) in Alfred E. Kellermann a. o. (eds.),
23. supra n. 18, p. 313-330.
24. Cf. conference volume 'Rizeni o predbezne otazce a narodni soudy/Das Vorabentscheidungs-verfahren und die netionalen Gerichte' (Praha, Linde 2005).
25. For instance, Art. 91(3) Polish Constitution (direct application, precedence), Art. 7(2) Slovak Constitution (precedence).
26. Art. 29.4.10 Constitution of Ireland; case Greene v. Minister for Agriculture, [1990] 2 IR 17,
27. for commentary see Common Market Law Review (1999), p. 830.
28. Case Bananenmarktordnung, decision of 7 June 2000, BverfGE 102, 147.
29. Karl Korinek, 'Die doppelte Bedingtheit von Gemeinschaftsrecht-ausführenden innerstaatlichen Rechtsvorschriften, in S. Hammer, A. Slomek, M. Stelzer, B. Weichselbaum, Demokratie und sozialer Rechtsstaat in Europa. FS Theo Öhlinger (Wien 2004), p. 131.
30. Cf. decision of the Trybunal Konstytucyjny of 11 May 2005, case No. K 18/ 04, reported on 17 May 2005 in Dz.U. (Polish collection of laws) No. 86, p. 744.
31. Decision of 10 June 2004, case No. 2004-496 DC.
32. Nos. 364/2004 Coll. and 548/2005 Coll.
33. Nos. 1260/2001/EC and 1609/2005/EC.
34. Decision of 8 March 2006, case No. Pl. ÚS 50/04 Sugar Quotas (published as No. 156/2006 Coll., the English translation is available under .
35. The ConstC did not refer expressly to more recent cases Bananenmarktordnung and Alcan (2000) or Görgülü (2004), where the BVerfG defined more restrictive conditions of admissibility for a constitutional review of Community acts, departing from the need of an individual violation of fundamental rights ('ausbrechender Rechtsakt') to a general decline ('Fehlentwicklung'). Nevertheless, it shared, without any doubt, this position.
36. In contrast to some other member states, the decision of the Czech Constitutional Court has constitutive effect in this respect, which protects the legal certainty of those who bona fide relied on the legality of the implementing provision before annulment; an ordinary court, faced with a question on the constitutionality of any Czech statute (incl. a statute implementing a Community act) shall submit the matter to the Constitutional Court (Art. 95(2) Const).
37. Under Art. 112 Const the constitutional order is made up of the Constitution itself, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms, constitutional acts adopted pursuant to the Constitution and several constitutional acts from the period immediately preceding the division of Czechoslovakia.
38. The ConstC referred to the case 34/73 Variola [1973] ECR 981, restricting the implementation of Community regulations to the specific circumstances.
39. ECJ cases 5/88 Wachauf [1989] ECR 2609, C-260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I/2925, C-309/96 Annibaldi [1997] ECR I-7493 and C-292/97 Karlsson [2000] ECR 2737, see Declaration No. 12 concerning the explanations relating to the EU Charter, Final Act to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (Art. 51).
40. Presumably, the Constitutional Court paid attention to the rule on co-existence of these three standards as set out in Art. 53 Charter of Fundamental Rights EU.
41. Point VI.A-3 of the decision.
42. Amendment acts to the Criminal Code (No. 537/2004 Coll.) and to the Code on Criminal Procedure (No. 539/2004 Coll.).
43. No. 2002/584/JHA, OJ L 190 of 18 July 2002.
44. Art. 14.4 CzCharter.
45. Art. 39 CzCharter.
46. ECJ decision of 16 June 2005, case No. C-105/03 Maria Pupino [2005] ECR I/5285.
47. Decision of 3 May 2006, case no. Pl. ÚS 66/04 European Arrest Warrant (published as No. 434/2006 Coll., the English translation is available under .
48. Jiří Zemánek, 'Evropskopravni meze prezkumu ustavnosti implementace ramcoveho rozhodnuti o eurozatykaci' [The European law limits of constitutional review of the implementation of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant], Pravni rozhledy [Legal Horizon] (2006), p. 90 et seq.
49. Art. 80 EU Charter.
50. Decision of 27 April 2005, case No. P 1/05.
51. The Court stated with reference to H.Ch. Biron, K.E. Chalmers and C. Stanbrook (without any more specific sourcing), that the countries, adhering unambiguously to the principle of territoriality in extradition affaires, like UK, Ireland or Malta, do not need to settle such a problem.
52. The Court referred to the ECJ joint cases No. C-187/01and C-385/01 Gözütok and Brügge [2003] ECR I/1345.
53. Cases No. Pl. ÚS 31/03 and No. Pl. ÚS 5/01.
54. Case EAW (see n. 43), para. 71;
55. an identical statement was made in Sugar Quotas case (see n. 30).
56. Decision of 18 July 2005, 2 BvR 2236/04, para. 119.
57. Prohibition to force citizens to leave the country and nullum crimen sine lege (Arts. 14(4) and 39 CzCharter).
58. §377.
59. §411(6).
60. The political, not the legal motivation of the claimants (the group of MPs) was obvious. They were well aware of the impossibility to reach an amendment to the Czech Constitution (by the qualified three-fifths majority in both Chambers of Parliament) soon. They simply wished to torpedo one of the elements of the Area of freedom, security and justice, as an important part of the emerging political union.
61. Case EAW (see n. 4 3), para. 82.
62. Cf. Jan Komarek, 'European Constitutionalism and the European Arrest Warrant: In Search of the Limits of Contrapunctual Principles', Common Market Law Review (2007), p. 39.
63. Decision of 16 Jan. 2007, case No. Pl. ÚS 36/05.
64. No. 89/105/EEC relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medical products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8-11).
65. Case C-222/00 Commission v. Finland [2003] ECR I-5727, case C-424/99 Commission v. Austria [2001] ECR I-9285.
66. This Court maintains a reservation against already recognized principle of supremacy of Community law over national law in respect of the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitutional Charter: Corte cost., the decision of 27 Dec. 1973, No. 183 Frontini e Pozzani, Foro italiano 1974 I, P. 314, confirmed later by the decision of 8 June 1984, No. 170 Granital, Foro italiano 1984 I, p. 2062.
67. Cf. the decision of the Polish constitutional court on the Treaty of Accession (supra n. 26), for commentary see Krystyna Kowalik-Bańczyk, 'Should we Polish It Up? The Polish Constitutional Tribunal and the Idea of Supremacy of EU Law', German Law Journal (2005) 10, p. 1357;
68. J. Galster (ed.), Podstawy prawa Unii Europejskej (Torun 2004), chapter XIII.4 by K. Witkowska-Chrzczonowicz, p. 548-550.
69. The case of Maria Papino supra n. 42 makes clear that there is a duty of consistent interpretation, but is clear on other effects of framework decisions, if any.
70. Cf the reference of the Belgian Arbitragehof of 13 July 2005 for a preliminary ruling (case No. C-303/05), not decided by the ECJ until 3 May 2007 (n.y.r.).
71. Anne-Marie Slaughter, Alec Stone Sweet, Joseph H.H. Weiler (eds.), The European Court and national Courts - Doctrine and Jurisprudence. Legal Change in Its Social Context, Juliane Kokott, Report on Germany, Oxford 2000, p. 130.