Czech constitutional court playing with matches: The Czech constitutional court declares a judgment of the court of justice of the EU ultra vires; Judgment of 31 January 2012, Pl. ÚS 5/12, Slovak Pensions XVII

European Constitutional Law Review

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 323-337

  Komárek, Jan ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Court of Justice of the European Union; Czech Constitutional Court; Czech Supreme Administrative Court; Landtov

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866536287     PISSN: 15740196     EISSN: 17445515     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1574019612000193     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. By this I mean both constitutional and supreme courts. On this issue see Michal Bobek, 'The Impact of the European Mandate of Ordinary Courts on the Position of Constitutional Courts', in M de Visser and C Van De Heyning (eds.), Constitutional Conversations in Europe (Cambridge: Intersentia forthcoming), available at SSRN: .
2. See Marc Bossuyt and Willem Verrijdt, 'The Full Ef ect of EU Law and of Constitutional Review in Belgium and France after the Melki Judgment', 7 EuConst (2011) p. 355.
3. Judgment of 16 Nov. 2011, SK 45/09. The English translation is available at .
4. Art. 30(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (the English translation is available at the Czech Constitutional Court's website, . T is was explicitly conf rmed by judgment of 24 June 2008, I. ÚS 294/06, paras. 25 and 33, where the Court rejected a constitutional complaint against the rejection of the special increment explicitly on the basis of the complainant's lack of Czech citizenship.
5. Judgment of 20 March 2007, Pl. 4/06, Slovak Pensions V. The English translation is available at the Czech Constitutional Court's website, .
6. Judgment of 1 Aug. 2009, II. ÚS 1009/08, the English translation is available at .
7. Judgment of 26 Nov. 2008, Pl. ÚS 19/08, Lisbon Treaty I, The English translation is available at the Czech Constitutional Court's website, .
8. For an analysis of the judgment, see the Case Comment by Petr B?íza, 5 European Constitutional Law Review (2009) p. 143.
9. On this, see Mehrdad Payandeh, 'Constitutional Review of EU Law after Honeywell: Contex- tualizing the Relationship between the German Constitutional Court and the EU Court of Justice', 48 CML Rev (2011) p. 9.
10. Judgment of 3 Nov. 2009, Pl. ÚS 29/09, paras. 120 and 121. The English translation is avail able at .
11. See A. Moravcsik, The Choice for Europe: Social Purpose and State Power from Messina to Maas tricht (Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1998)
12. A. Milward, The European Rescue of the Nation-State (London: Routledge 1992).
13. On the constraints that the Bundesverfassungsgericht faces in this context, see Arthur Dyevre, 'The German Federal Constitutional Court and European Judicial Politics', 34 West European Poli tics (2011) p. 346.
14. Michal Bobek, '... a Ústavní soud sko?il', Lidové noviny 20 Feb. 2012. A more heated debate occurred at a lawblog Jiné právo (), which appears to be widely read in the Czech Republic (it gets around 1200 unique visitors every day and is regularly cited by general newspapers.
15. As the recent collection, M. Avbelj and J. Komárek (eds.), Constitutional Pluralism in Europe and Beyond (Oxford: Hart 2012), shows, there is hardly any unity among those who either sub scribe to constitutional pluralism (however def ned), or criticize it.
16. For an early and very thoughtful critique of constitutional pluralism, see Julio Baquero Cruz, 'The Legacy of the Maastricht-Urteil and the Pluralist Movement', 14 European Law Journal (2008) p. 389.
17. As, for example, Miguel Poiares Maduro's rendering of the theory has it (see particularly 'Con- trapunctual Law: Europe's Constitutional Pluralism in Action', in N. Walker (ed.), Sovereignty in Transition (Oxford: Hart 2003).
18. Judgment of 8 March 2006, Pl. ÚS 50/04, Sugar Quotas III. The English translation is avail able at the Czech Constitutional Court's website, .
19. As required by the Bundesverfassungsgericht in its Honeywell decision, judgment of 6 July 2010, Case 2 BvR 2661/06. The English translation is available at the, .
20. 'Bewahrung und Erneuerung des Nationalstaats im Lichte der Europäischen Einigung', 1 March 2012, Hessen Regional Parliament (Landtag), Wiesbaden.
21. And I emphatically argued that it is not in '"In the Court(S) We Trust?" On the Need for Hierarchy and Dif erentiation in the Preliminary Ruling Procedure', 32 European Law Rev (2007) p. 467.