| Abstrakty publik. článků |
česká část
anglická část
|
 |
| Archiv časopisu |
| Jurisprudence |
|
| EMP |
|
|
od 15.4.2007
|
Wintr J.: Constitutional Courts first decision on the constitutionality of an international treaty
In its decision Pl. ÚS 19/08, no. 446/2008 Coll., the Constitutional Court has for the first time decided on whether an international treaty complies with the constitutional order. Although the main importance of the decision is in its review of the contents of the Lisbon Treaty, it also offers substantial conclusions for future deliberations on the compatibility of international agreements with the constitution. The Constitutional Court demands in particular that the eventual petitioner puts under doubt the compliance of individual provisions of the treaty and presents arguments for such doubts. The Court will question only those provisions of the treaty which were expressively and with arguments disputed by the petitioner. This opens the space for the Constitutional Courts ability to make more than one decision concerning the same international agreement; rei iudicatae obstacle is thus restricted only to the new deliberating of already reviewed provisions of the treaty. The Constitutional Court is prepared to review the compliance of international agreements under article 10a of the Constitution with the entire constitutional order and not only with the material focus of the Constitution (the content of which is outlined for the first time); this will however play a cardinal role in the review.
Zemánek J.: Review of constitutionality of Lisbon Treaty: issues of contents
The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic dealt with the review of compliance of an international treaty with Czech constitutional order for the very first time before its ratification under Art. 87 par. 2 of Constitution (Pl. ÚS 19/08, no. 446/2008 Coll.), based on the motion of a group of senators who had conditioned their consent by a positive result of this review. The sentence was unambiguously positive. In the grounds of its judgment the court leaned to the modern definition of state sovereignty; it did not find the precise specification of division of jurisdiction between the EU and member states in contradiction with the constitution, recommended the so-called transitional stipulations (passerelle) for future simplified amendments of the Treaties to increased attention of Czech Parliament and declared the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU compatible with local constitutional standard.
|
| Vyhledávání |
|
Inzerce
|
|
|
