387/2009 Sb.



FIND



The Constitutional Court



On behalf of the Republic of



The Constitutional Court ruled the day 3. November 2009 in Parliament consisting of the President of the

Pavel Rychetský Court and judges Stanislav ass-bag, of Franz Duchoně,

Vlasta Formánkové, Vojena Güttlera, Paul Holländera, Ivana Janů,

Vladimir Crust, Dagmar Lastovecké, Jiří Mucha, Jan Jiří Musil,

Miloslava Nykodýma, Excellent, Wagnerové and Michaela Židlické Of

According to the article. paragraph 87. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic on the proposal of the Group of Senators

Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic jointly represented by Senator Jiri

Oberfalzerem, legally represented by lawyer Jaroslav Cuba, on

assessment of the conformity of the Lisbon Treaty amending the Treaty on European

Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community with the constitutional order,

with the participation of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic,

the Government of the Czech Republic and the President of the Czech Republic, legally represented

Aleš Pejchalem, lawyer



as follows:



I. the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the

establishing the European Community



-as a whole,



-article. 7, article. 8 article. 9, article. 10, paragraph 1. 1, article. 13 (3). 1, article. 14 paragraph. 2,

article. 17 paragraph. 1 and 3, article. 19 paragraph. 1, article. 20, article. 21. 2 (a). (h)),

article. paragraph 42. 2, article. 47 and article. paragraph 50. 2 to 4 contained in the Treaty on

The European Union,



-in article. 3, in the article. paragraph 78. 3, article. paragraph 79. 1 and article. 83 contained in

The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union



and its ratification is not in conflict with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic.



II. The proposal that the Constitutional Court assessed the compliance of the Treaty on European Union

(the complainant identified as the "Maastricht Treaty") as a whole and

The Treaty establishing the European Community (the complainant identified as

"Treaty of Rome") as a whole with the constitutional order, refuses.



III. The proposal that the Constitutional Court assessed the compliance of the article. 2, article. 4 and article. 216

The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, with the constitutional order, refuses.



IV. The proposal that the Constitutional Court stated that "the decision of the heads of State or

Government meeting within the European Council in relation to the concerns of the Irish

the people concerning the Treaty of Lisbon, which in the days of 18. and 19. June

2009 supplement certain provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, is the international

the contract referred to in article 10 of the Constitution, and as such requires the consent of both

Chambers of Parliament, the constitutional majority, otherwise it is not in relation to the Czech

Republic applicable ", refuses.



In the proposal that. The Constitutional Court with this proposal to initiate proceedings on compliance of

The Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the

establishing the European Community with the constitutional order merged proposal

a group of Senators to repeal the provisions selected necessitated both

Chambers of Parliament, conducted under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 26/09, refuses.



Justification:



(I).



Recap of the proposal



And the.



Proposal of 28 July. September 2009



1. The Constitutional Court has received 29. September 2009 proposal for a group of Senators together

represented by Senator Jiri Oberfalzerem (hereinafter "the applicant"), on the

assessment of the conformity of the Lisbon Treaty amending the Treaty on European

Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community with the constitutional order

According to the article. paragraph 87. 2 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic, as amended (hereinafter referred to as

"The Constitution").



2. Petit design is divided into four points, which correspond to the even

the following part of the justification for the proposal.



3.



(I) small print design

the appellant challenges the consistency "to the Lisbon Treaty as a whole,"

"The Maastricht Treaty as a whole," and "the Rome Treaty as a whole" with the article.

1 (1). 1 of the Constitution and article. 2 (2). 1 of the Charter; in fact, the applicant

referring to the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and

The Treaty establishing the European Community (hereinafter referred to as "the Lisbon

the Treaty "), or the Treaty on European Union (" TEU "), sometimes

actually known as the "Maastricht Treaty", as amended by the Lisbon

of the Treaty, respectively. The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union ("TFEU"),

Therefore, the Treaty establishing the European Community, which has been amended and

renamed the Lisbon Treaty and is sometimes referred to as the "Roman

the Treaty ".



4. On this point, small print design attaches an extensive argument contained in the

11 points to 100. First, in paragraphs 11 to 59 of the proposal the applicant defines the

the basis of your argument, which calls into question the consistency of the Lisbon

the Treaty with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic. Serves its own definition and

the definition of the essential requirements of the "rule of law" (point 14 to 26

the proposal), "democratic State" (paragraph 27 and 28 of the proposal),

"a democratic State" (paragraph 29 to 38 of the proposal), and finally also the

"sovereign democratic State" (paragraph 39 to 59 of the draft).



5. After the applicant in points 60 to 96, the report gives the arguments why, in

the Treaty of Lisbon it contradicts the above defined characteristics, and in

paragraphs 97 to 100 proposal summarizes.



6. Firstly, the appellant is



The Treaty of Lisbon as a whole

in contradiction with the



article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution

or with the characteristics of the Czech Republic as the rule of law. The reason for this

to be, that does not satisfy the sufficient clarity and

clarity of legislation (in particular with regard to the absence of

"genuine consolidation" of the TEU and the TFEU and with regard to the scope of the

the changes introduced by the Lisbon Treaty-see paragraphs 61 to 70 of the proposal) and

the principle of the prohibition of retroactive onwards (with regard to "option

the institutions of the European Union, responsible for the issue of its official journal,

perform in the Lisbon Treaty still subsequently and during its

approval of the amendments in order to correct errors, which will be in Lisbon»

contract or in the existing treaties to which «"projector

points out in point 71 of the proposal). According to these principles the appellant generally

It belongs to the basic characters of the rule of law (paragraph 97 of the draft this argument

summarizes and refers to other points of the proposal, which in the opinion of

applicant support).



7. The applicant adds that the so-called. "bound the mandate", i.e.,

prior consent of the Parliament with the vote of the representative of the Czech Republic in

The Council of the EU, must be subject to all of the voting, which will coincide with the powers of the

Parliament, at the national level. The appellant believes that the so-called.

bound the mandate should be subject to control by the Constitutional Court in a similar

the extent of national decision-making. According to the appellant's "by the time

the adoption of the [edit] bound mandate in that range would be the ratification of the

The Lisbon Treaty was illegal because its implementation would

came into conflict with the principle of the separation of powers, which is one of the necessary

assumptions, democratic State "(paragraph 82 of the draft; the point 100

the draft summarizes this argument and refers to other points of the proposal, which

It is in the opinion of the plaintiffs ' support).



8. Secondly, the applicant considers that it is



Of the TEU as a whole

in contradiction with the



article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution

(characteristics of the Czech Republic as a democratic State),

respectively with the



article. 2 (2). 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms

(hereinafter referred to as "the Charter"). The applicant points out that article 3 of the TFEU,

defines the objectives of the European Union, and claims that "the following objectives are contrary to the

the principle of political neutrality, because the advance limit the possible decisions

the majority, i.e.. the Government of the people "(point 87). At the same time by the appellant

Of the TEU as a whole does not meet the requirement of political neutrality, which belongs to the

the basic characters of the democratic State (point 98 design this argument

summarizes and refers to other points of the proposal, which in the opinion of

applicant support).



9. Third, the applicant considers that the



how the TEU as a whole, of the TFEU as a whole

are in conflict with the



article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution

(characteristics of the Czech Republic as a sovereign State). The reason for this

According to the appellant, is that these contracts be permitted as a target

European integration the formation of a joint European defense, while custom

the defense is a competence which must always remain in the view of the appellant's

a sovereign State is maintained, if it is to remain sovereign. Another reason

předestřeným by the applicant is whether or not these contracts as the ultimate goal of

European integration do not preclude the creation of a common European federal

State (point 99 of the draft summarizes this argument and refers to other points

the proposal, which in the opinion of the appellant's support).



10.



(II) small print design

the appellant challenges the consistency of selected provisions of the TEU and in the selected

small print set out in the provisions of the Constitution or the Charter.



11. Firstly, the appellant focuses on



article. 7 of the TEU

that mj. regulates the possibility of suspension of rights, which for the Member State

resulting from the use of Contracts, in the case of a serious and persistent breach of the

the values listed in the article. 2 TEU. The appellant challenges the consistency of this

the provisions as a whole and, in particular, contained in phrases

"a clear risk", "serious breaches" and "certain rights" and formulation

"in doing so, account shall be taken of the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and

the obligations of natural and legal persons ", with the



article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution

specifically, the principles of universality and with reasonable sufficient clarity

the legislation, which the applicant shall be deemed to have

the components of the rule of law. Appellant contradicts the article. 7 of the TEU also

the provisions of the



article. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution
. States that "If the suspended members, with design

the consequences even for private persons, then the Czech State power effectively

will not be able to serve its citizens, because it will be temporarily deprived of certain

rights, without which the service can do for citizens "(paragraph 105 of the draft).

His argument in more detail in recitals 102 the appellant distributes up to 106

the proposal.



12. Secondly, the appellant focuses on



article. 8 TEU

. This provides, in paragraph 1, that "the Union shall develop in their countries

the neighbourhood of the privileged relations in order to establish an area of prosperity and good

neighbourly relations, based on the values of the Union and characterised by close

and peaceful relations based on cooperation. ". As with the

the previous provisions of the TEU the applicant calls into question its compliance as

a whole, and in particular as regards the phrase "privileged relations" and "close

relations with the



article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution

specifically, the principles of universality and with reasonable sufficient clarity

the legislation, which the appellants are considered a must have

the components of the rule of law. In more detail its argument appellant

divorced in points 107 to 109 of the proposal.



13. Third, the appellant focuses on



article. 10, paragraph 1. 1 TEU

, which provides that "the functioning of the Union shall be founded on representative

democracy. ". According to the petitioner, "the European Union is to remain

international organizations, cannot be based on a representative

democracy. Must remain based on the sovereign equality of its

Member States and representative democracy must remain only its

necessary and at the same time luxury supplement ' (recital 111 of the proposal). Projector

He argues that "If the representative democracy, the basis of the EU

It would mean that the EU itself is the State, and it would be contrary to the principle that the

Czech Republic may only be transferred to an international organization or institution

just some of the powers of its institutions, but not its sovereignty itself "

(paragraph 113 of the draft). The provisions of the article. 10, paragraph 1. 1 TEU according

navrhovatelova considers contrary to the



article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution and article. 10A of the Constitution

. His argument in more detail in recitals 110 elaborates on the petitioner to 113

the proposal.



14. Fourthly, the appellant focuses on



article. 17 paragraph. 1 (a). 3 TEU

concerning the position of the Commission. The first paragraph of the appellant

"its unclear formulations contradicts the reasonable requirements of universality and

sufficient clarity of legislation and as such is contrary to

the principle of legal certainty, which makes the existence of the rule of law ". In

as a result, appellant contradicts the



article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution

. The third paragraph of the provisions concerned. States that are members of the

The Commission selected "according to their general competence and European commitment from persons

offer every guarantee of independence. “. According to the petitioner, "this

provisions effectively prevents anyone who should be nonconformist views on

European integration to become a member of the Commission "(paragraph 118 of the proposal).

The appellant, therefore, in sections 120 and 121 argues that this provision

"not only vague, but, moreover, extremely ideologically with and

discriminatory ". Therefore, the appellant contradicts the "not only the principles of

adequate and sufficient generality of the clarity Act, but

and the principle of political neutrality "(item 120 of the draft). For these reasons it has

be a article. 17 paragraph. 3 TEU in contradiction with the



article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution

and also with the



article. 2 (2). 1 of the Charter

According to which the State may not bind to any exclusive ideology.

The applicant also considers that this provision contradicts the



article. 1 (1). 1 of the Charter

(sic), in which people's equal in the rights and



article. 21. 4 of the Charter of

According to which citizens have access on equal terms to elected and other

public functions. According to the petitioner is unconstitutional inequality in

the determination of the conditions of adequate Europeanism. In more detail in its

argument the appellant distributes in 114 to 121 points of the proposal.



15. Fifth, the applicant focuses on



article. 20 TEU

, which modifies the enhanced cooperation between the Member States of the EU. According to the

the plaintiff prevents making enhanced cooperation agreement of the EU institutions

the exercise of certain powers at European level and at the level of the

the Member States, and as such it contradicts the principle of the Government of the people

This in



article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution

. Furthermore, according to navrhovatelova's opinion "is contrary to limiting cooperation

Member States in the areas where the Union has not exercised its competence, so far

and the principle of the sovereignty of the Czech Republic "(item 127 of the draft), and therefore



article. 10A of the Constitution

. In more detail in its argument the applicant elaborates on points 122 to 128

the proposal.



16. Sixth, the applicant focuses on



article. 21. 2 (a). h) TEU

. According to this provision, "the Union shall define and implement a common policy and

activities and aims to achieve a high degree of cooperation in all

areas of international relations, in an effort to [...] to support international

a system based on stronger multilateral cooperation and good governance

Public Affairs on a worldwide scale. ". According to the appellant, this

the provisions contradicts the "principle of sufficient clarity legal

Regulation, and as a result, the principle of legal certainty, which makes

the existence of the rule of law [...], and is contrary to the principle of political

neutrality of the Constitution "(point 130 of the draft). The applicant therefore considers that the

the provisions in question is inconsistent with the



article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution

and with the



article. 2 (2). 1 of the Charter

According to which the State may not bind to any exclusive ideology.

In more detail in its argument the applicant elaborates on points 129 and 130

the proposal.



17. the seventh petitioner focuses on



article. paragraph 42. 2 of the TEU

. According to this provision, the "common security and defence policy

includes the progressive framing of a common defence policy for the Union. This will lead to

a common defence, when the European Council about it unanimously. In

this case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in

accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. “. According to the opinion expressed by

the applicant may not at all Czech Republic "to strive for the common

European defence-infringed would own the Institute already now "(paragraph 135

the proposal). According to the appellant's "just contractual admitting the possibility of

the European Federation with the Czech Republic as one of its bodies,

is contrary to the principle that the Czech Republic is a sovereign State. The same thing

the same applies to the obligation to seek a common European defence, because without

own defence Czech Republic would cease to be a sovereign State "(point

135 proposal). Therefore, the provisions concerned to be in conflict with



article. 1 (1). 1

and



article. 10A of the Constitution

. In more detail in its argument the applicant elaborates on points 131 to 136

the proposal.



18. Finally, in the eighth, the appellant focuses on



article. paragraph 50. 2 to 4 of the TEU

. These provisions govern the possibility of withdrawal of a Member State of the EU.

According to the appellant, this edit "contrary to the principle of

sovereignty ", enshrined in the



article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution

and also it is contrary to the principles of "retroactive and legitimate

expectations, therefore, the basic principle of the rule of law, that any rules

must be known in advance "(paragraph 143 of the proposal). According to the appellant's uncertainty

the future conditions of the EU contradicts and



article. 10A of the Constitution

as "the transfer of powers must be, and must be, and how

withdrawal of the delegated powers at national level. The withdrawal of the powers

not be subject to the consent of or the need for a de facto EU "(paragraph 144

the proposal). In more detail in its argument the applicant elaborates on points 137

up to 145 design.



19.



(III) small print design

the appellant challenges the consistency of selected provisions of the "Treaty of Rome"

(hence the TFEU), specifically its



article. paragraph 78. 3 and article. paragraph 79. 1

[with the constitutional order]. In the small print of the proposal while the appellant

does not indicate what provisions of the constitutional provisions in question would

TFEU should be in conflict, but it is seznatelné from the other text in the design,

from 147 to 150 points.



20. The provisions of article. paragraph 78. 3 TFEU provides: "find themselves if one or

more Member States, in the State of emergency as a result of a sudden inflow of nationals

nationals of third countries, the Council may, on a proposal from the Commission, adopt the

benefit of the Member States concerned, the temporary measures. The Council shall act after

consultation with the European Parliament. '. The provisions of the article. paragraph 79. 1, TFEU

then he says that "the Union shall develop a common immigration policy aimed at

the aim is to ensure that, at all stages, the efficient management of migration flows,

fair treatment for third-country nationals lawfully

residing in the Member States, as well as the prevention of illegal

Immigration and trafficking in human beings and strengthening the fight against these

activities. ". According to the appellant from these provisions that the "

the composition and the number of refugees on its territory will not always make

Czech Republic. The European Union gets the power to participate in the

decisions that can significantly influence the composition of a relatively

the population of the Czech Republic and its cultural and social character "

(point 148). According to the appellant, it is contrary to the principle, which is referred to in

his opinion included in the



article. 1 (1). 1 and article. 10A of the Constitution

, and that "the powers that relate to decision-making in matters

the extraordinary cultural or social impact, are non-transferable and
must always remain completely within the competence of the authorities of the Czech Republic. Their

transfer to the international organization or institution would be contrary to the nature of the

The Czech Republic as a sovereign State "(paragraph 148 of the proposal). In addition, the

the applicant States that this only vaguely defined provisions of the TFEU

the conditions "under which the EU Council to act and what they can do" (point

149 of the proposal). Therefore, in the opinion of the appellant's article. paragraph 78. 3 TFEU

"contradicts the principles of universality and reasonable, or adequate

the clarity of legislation, and as a result, getting into

contrary to the principle of legal certainty, as a prerequisite for

the existence of the rule of law "(paragraph 149 of the proposal). In more detail in its

argument the appellant distributes in points 147až 150 design.



21.



(III) small print design

the appellant's "reserves



the right to supplement the petit

and the proposal on the assessment of the other selected articles of the Treaty of Rome "; in point

146 of his proposal then States that "for reasons of time are not yet listed

only two provisions, however, are the plaintiffs ready to this part of the

Supplement ". The reason for this is that the appellant does not want to "defend the constitutional

the Court, in order to address this proposal already now. ".



22.



point IV of the small print of the proposal

First, the appellant asks that the "Constitutional Court stated that the decision of the

the heads of State or Government, meeting within the European Council in relation to the

the concerns of the Irish people on the Lisbon Treaty, which in the days of

18 and 19. June 2009 supplement certain provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon,

It is an international treaty in accordance with article 10 of the Constitution, and as such requires

the consent of both chambers of Parliament, the constitutional majority, otherwise it is not in the

relation to the Czech Republic applicable. “. Petit then formulated as follows

the appellant distributes in 151 to 165 points of the proposal.



23. Finally, the applicant refers to its previous proposal on the abolition

selected provisions necessitated both chambers of the Parliament (SP. zn. PL.

TC 26/09), quoting from his small print, and with reference to the provisions of section 63

Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, in connection with the provision of section

112 of the Act No. 99/1963 Coll., the code of civil procedure, "petitioner requests that the

The Constitutional Court of the two proposals



connect to a common control

“.



(B).



Addition to the proposal of 15 March. October 2009



24. On 15. October 2009, the Constitutional Court received a document entitled "the Tween

the proposal of the Group of Senators on the assessment of the conformity of the Lisbon Treaty

amending the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European

the community, or their selected provisions, with the constitutional order "

(hereinafter referred to as "tweens"), presented by Senator Jiri Oberfalzerem as

the representative of the Group of senators. In the Tween is proposed "to the Constitutional Court

also examine the consistency of the following articles of the Treaty on the functioning of

The European Union, as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon [...]: articles 2, 3 and 4;

Article 83; and article 216 article 1, paragraph 1. 1 and Article 10a of the Constitution ".



25. In argumentation of replenishment, which binds to the above

zpochybněným provisions of the TFEU, are first described the basis for the

the review of the Lisbon Treaty, as reported by the original proposal ("Historical:

The basic elements of a sovereign, democratic State, "points

3 to 6 addition).



26. After the supplement provides in point 7, that the "shared powers of the appellants

considered very broadly, and too general a defined-as a result, it is

You can further expand the way extensive interpretation ". According to the appellant's

"the volume of the transmitted, or potentially not delegated powers

exactly identifiable ", and therefore, in his opinion, be inconsistent with the

"the principle of proportionate to the generality of the laws [...] and with the principle that

Czech Republic may, in accordance with Article 10a of its Constitution to transfer only part of the

competences of its institutions, not all (even potentially) ".

So in this regard, that the definition of shared powers

made by



article. 4 TFEU

is in conflict with the



article. 1 (1). 1 and with article. 10A of the Constitution

.



27. In paragraph 8 of the supplement States that



article. 2 (2). 4 TFEU

"Furthermore notes that the common foreign and security policy has

lead to the definition of a common defence policy. And that in itself is a [according to the

the opinion referred to in the supplement] conflict "with



article. 1 (1). 1 and article. 10A of the Constitution

-According to the plaintiff, the same reasoning applies here ", which applies to the article.

42 TEU (as amended by the Lisbon Treaty) ". Supplement refers to 131 points to

136 the proposal.



28. point 9 of the Tween calls into question the consistency of the



article. 3 TFEU with article. 1 (1). 1 and article. 10A of the Constitution

. Stating:



"The Problematic is the exclusive competence of the Union. The appellants do not dispute

migration [article. 3 TFEU] listed powers to the EU. Problem

find it in the fact that while the EU has these powers, or gets, but

It is not required to be carried out without further. She fails to agree

the appropriate legislation; at the same time the Member States these powers,

i.e.. must not be carried out, and it was just in a situation where the Union

agree, what rules they have to pay in a specific area. Can

Therefore, as the situation in the areas of exclusive competence of the Union will not be

no rules apply. And this is in stark contrast to the very essence of

the rule of law, which is the existence of rules, IE. to give individuals and

their different groups, at least the relative certainty, what the consequences will be

their behavior, and by them to facilitate decision-making and mutual

coexistence ".



29. In the opinion of the formulated in point 10 of the additions "exclusive EU competence

in General contradicts the article. 1 (1). 1 and article. 10A of the Constitution. In accordance with them is

only such a transfer of jurisdiction, where the result is a shared competence, i.e.,

the situation, when there is no danger that any area remained entirely without factual

legal editing. The transfer of powers in the sense of the article. 3 and 4, TFEU is

bounded, recognizable and specific enough ".



30. In paragraphs 11 to 14 of them questioned the consistency of the



article. with article 83 TFEU. 1 (1). 1 and article. 10A of the Constitution

. According to the opinion expressed in the supplement "deciding, what is

criminal offence and what penalties are to be imposed for criminal offences belongs to the

those powers of the organs of the State, which cannot be transferred in accordance with article

10A of the Constitution "(point 11 of the tween, reference is made to paragraph 54 of the draft paragraph 6, respectively.

Supplement); "the text from [zpochybňovaného the provisions of] it is clear that the European

the Union is to get its own criminal jurisdiction ", which has" in itself

"the provisions of the Constitution contradict the appointed (section 13 supplement).

Finally, it states that "this power has clear contours, the Council, together with the

The European Parliament can further their criminal jurisdiction area

expand. And the transfer of powers within the meaning of [article 83 TFEU] is therefore not

bounded, recognizable and specific enough "(point 14 Supplement).



31. In paragraphs 15 to 20 of the Tween is questioned the consistency of the



article. with article 216 of the TFEU. 1 (1). 1 and article. 10A of the Constitution

. Supplement States that "yet that this article was already attacked the proposal

The Senate, proponents believe that there are other circumstances,

that the Senate in 2008, specifically the complainant pointed, and Constitutional Court with them

Therefore, even though he didn't deal with them myself touched "(point 16). Review

the arguments referred to by the Senate and the relevant part of the finding sp.. Pl. ÚS

19/08 of 26 March. 11.2008 (446/2008 Coll.)-point 182, literally cited

There are 183 and 186 points.



32. Finally, in point 21 of the supplement States:



"The plaintiffs cannot escape the impression that the Constitutional Court in assessing the

The Lisbon Treaty with constitutional order was always in the case of

any doubt on the side rather than on the side of the Treaty of Lisbon

the constitutional order. The Constitutional Court has a considerable degree of freedom of interpretation and

efforts to follow the assigned so that the Lisbon Treaty could be

declared prior to the constitutional order, the Constitutional Court cannot be

Unfortunately, deny. And also some public appearances of the judges of the constitutional

the Court gives the impression that he is decided in advance. "



33. quoting from an oral representation of President of the Republic of

in the matter of PL. ÚS 19/08 and "calls on the" Constitutional Court "to either explain why

the principle that decision-making in the case of international contracts has put in the case

any doubt always preferred constitutional right before the international

the Treaty does not apply, or be directed to the assessment of the design and of this

its supplement "(point 23 of the addition).



34. The same conclusion the Tween is summarised "proposal to assess compliance

The Lisbon Treaty, as is clear from this supplement ".



35. at the oral proceedings 27 June. October 2009 submitted the appellant for more

supplement your proposal, whose contents are rekapitulován in paragraphs 78 to 90

This award.



II.



The progress of the proceedings and a recap of the representation of the parties



36. Under section 71 c of the law on the Constitutional Court are parties on compliance

international treaties with constitutional laws in addition to the petitioner also

The Parliament, the President of the Republic and the Government. Therefore, the Constitutional Court under section 42

paragraph. 4 of the Act on the Constitutional Court sent the present proposal on the initiation of the

the management of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic,

President of the Republic and the Government of the Czech Republic with the fact that they have the opportunity to

the draft within the time limit.



And the.



Representation of the Chamber of Deputies



37. The day 8. October 2009 there have been observations of the Constitutional Court
the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic signed by its Chairman

Miloslav Vlčkem. Expression of primarily summarizes the progress of the approval

The Lisbon Treaty, the Chamber of Deputies. The President of the Chamber of Deputies

to him, however, and adds "your personal opinion about the relation of the previous

proceedings in the Constitutional Court [in which the Constitutional Court finding SP. zn.

PL. ÚS 19/08 of 26 March. 11.2008 (446/2008 Coll.)] the draft, submitted to the

a group of Senators ". Considers that, already in this finding of the Constitutional Court

"implicitly, reached to the conclusion that the ratification of the Treaty will not affect the Czech

the Republic as a democratic sovereign State within the meaning of the Constitution, laws and

The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. The opposite conclusion would then [by the Chairman

The Chamber of Deputies] necessarily provoke confusion about the conclusions of the

contained in the statement and in the grounds of the award of the Constitutional Court pl. ÚS

19/08 ". Finally, the representation of the President of the Chamber of Deputies notes that

proposal for a decision of the heads of State or Government, meeting within the

at the European Council in relation to the concerns of the Irish people on the Lisbon

the Treaty cannot be formal or substantive reasons, be considered as

the international treaty and, therefore, the proposal is to be considered as "an

apparently the interpretativního statement by the Constitutional Court for the

become obsolete ".



(B).



Representation Of The Senate



38. On 14 June 2004. October 2009, the Constitutional Court was the expression of the Senate

The Parliament of the Czech Republic signed by its Chairman, Přemysl Sobotka.

Representation of a first in part I and II. summarizes the content of the proposal and continues

Part III. the information in the course of approving the ratification of the Lisbon

of the Treaty by the Senate. Notes that "after a year and a quarter a long process

discussion of the Lisbon Treaty on the soil of the upper Chamber of Parliament was

May 6, 2009 the Senate given the consent to its ratification ". Then

in part IV. Turning to the question of compliance with the Treaty of Lisbon

the constitutional order. The representation of the States, was paid during the entire

consideration of the Treaty by the Senate, how much attention before submitting a proposal

The Senate on its review (PL. ÚS 19/08), and after him, when the

Senators focused in particular on the analysis "of that decision, both from the

the point of view of the formal and material ". Then the expression clearly

shows how each objected to the accordance of the Lisbon Treaty with the

the constitutional order, which is now the plaintiffs, subject of debate

in the Senate for their active participation (representation shows the extent of transmission issues

the powers and the preservation of sovereignty, the democratic deficit in the European

the Union, the question of the admission of the emergence of a "European Federation with the Czech

as a member of the Republic ", the definition of the objectives of the European Union, the question of

withdrawal of a Member State of the European Union, and finally to

"the extreme intricacy and unintelligibility" of the Lisbon Treaty).

Part IV. concluded that the Senate "the Treaty of Lisbon details and

thoroughly dealt with, and not just three times in its meetings, but also in all

the authorities referred to the document discussed, and although there

all sorts of opinions expressing how positive and negative opinions on the

This international treaty, the majority opinion was expressed of the day 6.

may, 2009 by the resolution, which the Senate gave consent to its ratification ". On

the full expression of the then President of the Chamber's conclusion States that "it shall be sent with the

knowing that it is entirely up to the Constitutional Court within the meaning of article. paragraph 87. 2

The Constitution and the second section of the Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,

on the proposal of the Group of Senators decided ".



(C).



Observations of the Government of



39. On 15. October 2009, the Constitutional Court was the expression of the Government of the Czech

Republic (adopted on the same day the Government resolution No. 1295). In detail, the

expresses to the individual points of the proposal of the Group of senators.



40. On the introduction of its observations, the Government considers it "necessary to emphasize, that the

The Constitutional Court has already once an assessment of compliance with the Treaty of Lisbon

the constitutional order dealt with [in finding pl. ÚS 19/08] said, that

The Treaty of Lisbon, in particular the provisions of the contested [the Senate] and

Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union are not in contradiction with the constitutional

policy ". According to the Government statement, "Although the Lisbon award includes

only some of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, the Government of

The Constitutional Court of neposuzoval these provisions in isolation, but rather in their

interrelated with other parts of the Lisbon Treaty and in the

the context of its overall concept. [...] This fact should be according to the

the opinion of the Government to take due account, in particular, in the assessment of part I.

the proposal "(point 2 of the observations of the Government). Furthermore, the Government states that "the admissibility of

a further proposal on the mid-term review of the Lisbon Treaty should be rather

exceptional "(point 3 of the observations of the Government). The Government also considers that "this

the question will be in relation to the proposal of the Group of Senators closer to clarify,

because in some parts of the proposal are clearly under assault has already revised

the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, or arguments that are used

The Constitutional Court has already rejected the finding in Lisbon "(point 3 of the observations of the Government).



41. To extend, where appropriate, its reservation of the appellant's submission on the proposal on

the assessment of the other provisions of the TFEU (see paragraph 21 of this award), the Government

lists:



"The Constitutional Court should in particular assess whether such a reservation, which has



de facto

the character of blanketního design on the initiation of the proceedings, is not contrary to the meaning and

the purpose of the procedure for the review of the compliance of the international treaty with constitutional order

Of the CZECH REPUBLIC. In the event that the Constitutional Court reached that conclusion, has the Government considered

that such a procedure could be assessed in the light of section 118b

Code of civil procedure, which could be due to the absence of

Express editing in section 71 d of the law on the Constitutional Court, secondarily, to take advantage of the

under section 63 of the Act [here the Government refers to the resolution of the SP. zn.

I. ÚS 288/2000 of 23 October 2000. 1.2001 (4/21 SbNU 471)]. The Government considers

that the Constitutional Court should consider whether, on the basis of the reasonable use of already

the cited section 118b of the code of civil procedure does not limit the appellant in

expansion options to the original proposal the principle of concentration control, and if

Yes, what time is this constraint binds "(point 5 of the observations of the Government).



42. The proposal to join the proceedings in this matter with the management SP. zn. Pl. ÚS

26/09 Government refers to a justification for the resolution of the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 26/09 dated

6.10. 2009, available at http://nalus. usoud. com about the rejection of the proposal in

This stuff.



43.



(I) small print

First, the Government proposal states that, in its opinion, is incorrectly

formulated, when challenging the "constitutional konformitu not only the Lisbon

the Treaty as a whole, but at the same time i [of the TEU and TFEU] as a whole. Lisbon

contract [in the opinion of the Government] undoubtedly represents a major amendment

the existing founding treaties, although certain provisions of the current version of

both Contracts shall remain unaffected by this amendment, and should not, therefore, be

subject to review by the Constitutional Court in the framework of the conformity of the Lisbon

the Treaty with constitutional order. The Government is convinced that, in the framework of this

the review cannot review the currently valid standards of primary

the law "(point 4 of the representation of the Government; cf. also point 8). The Government also States,

in this part of the proposal "lacks the relevant arguments and ústavněprávně

in some points rather gives the impression that the appellants are only trying to

to convince the Constitutional Court about his legal-political judgments "(point 8 of the

the observations of the Government). If so, then it would actually be to discuss the

these parts of the Constitutional Court was not, in the opinion of the Government of the

(point 9 of the representation of the Government).



44. Factually to the point of even the small print of the proposal states that the Government "cannot be

any doubt about the fact that consent to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty

the Parliament of the CZECH REPUBLIC was validly given, in accordance with all rules arising from the

The Constitution and the legal order of the CZECH REPUBLIC "(point 11 of the observations of the Government). According to the Government's

The Treaty of Lisbon "amendments to the founding treaties and subject to ratification

Therefore they are called. an amending points. This procedure is used in

cases, amendments to the statutory standards in the Czech legislative process "

(point 11 of the observations of the Government). In addition, according to the Government, "the absence of an official

consolidated text of the founding treaties, zapracovanými changes according to the

The conclusion is not supported by the Lisbon Treaty to the plaintiffs, but on the contrary appears

as a completely logical, since the subject of ratification in the Member States is

the Treaty of Lisbon just a changing of the memorandum. If the official

consolidated text existed, by contrast, the uncertainty in the

the meaning of what is to be the subject of ratification in all Member States, and

which of the two texts shall prevail in the event of their (hypothetical).

The Government states that the unofficial consolidated text of the founding treaties, the

zapracovanými changes under the Lisbon Treaty, which is used for better

orientation in the text, there are and have been published in the official journal of the EU and

in the Czech language "(paragraph 12 of the observations of the Government with reference to OJ. (C) 115,

2008, p. 1). The plaintiff alleged breach of the principle of the prohibition of

retroactive (see point 6 of this award), the Government stated that "this option

additional fixes, [...] is completely in accordance with international law.
This is the so-called. korigenda, or patches, which originated in the

translations from the original language of the text, or in other languages

the official languages of the Union, and not about the factual nature of the changes. This procedure

shall be subject to the rules laid down in the article. 79 of the Vienna Convention on the law of the contract

[published under no. 15/1988 Coll., hereinafter referred to as the ' Vienna Convention '] ' (paragraph 13 of the

representation of the Government, references omitted). The Government also opposes the claim

the petitioner that the Lisbon Treaty is contrary to the basic characteristics of

The Czech Republic as a sovereign and democratic State

enshrined in article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC, or in the article. 2 (2). 1 of the Charter

fundamental rights and freedoms with regard to the other alleged reasons summarized in the

sections 6 and 7 of this award.



45. Furthermore, the Government expressed to each of the reasons in which

the appellant sees conflict with certain provisions of the Lisbon Treaty

the constitutional order, and that the petitioner stated



in section II of the small print of the proposal

.



46. In paragraphs 18 to 23 of its observations, the Government argues that



article. 7 of the TEU

is not in conflict with article. 1 (1). 1 or with the article. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution (to this

the complainant therefore alleged violation of the Treaty of Lisbon with the constitutional

policy see point 11 of the award). Recalls that this provision has been

the subject of the examination by the Constitutional Court, which in the discovery pl. ÚS

19/08 did not find his conflict with the constitutional order. On the Government. lists,

the expressions whose excessive generality the appellant argues

"fairly reasonable limits the generality, and not only in the context of the standards

the norms of international law, but also in the context of the standards the standards

national law, which are apparently in comparison with the first mentioned

a higher "(point 20 of the representation of the Government, which refers to a point 186 finding pl. ÚS

19/08).



47. In paragraphs 24 to 31 of its observations, the Government argues that



article. 8 TEU

in its opinion, is in breach of article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution (to this

the complainant therefore alleged violation of the Treaty of Lisbon with the constitutional

policy see point 12 of the award). Here for example. the Government points to the fact

that "the importance of the disputed terms can be achieved with conventional interpretive

resources, which are for the interpretation of treaties set out in article. 31

Of the Vienna Convention. According to this provision, it is necessary to expressions in text

international treaties not discharge in isolation but in a mutual

the context, be interpreted in good faith and to ascribe to them the usual sense, and

Finally, take into account the subject matter and purpose of the Treaty, so that the interpretation of the

contributed to the effective implementation of the Treaty "(paragraph 25 of the observations of the Government).

The Government then such an interpretation carried out in the following paragraphs of his statement.



48. In paragraphs 32 and 33, the Government deals with doubts of plaintiffs

expressed in connection with the



article. 10, paragraph 1. 1 TEU

and also notes that it is not in conflict with article. 1 (1). 1, not with the article. 10A

The Constitution (this allegation of the complainant because of violation of the Lisbon

the Treaty with constitutional order, see point 13 of the award). The Government in section 32 of its

representation of States that these provisions of the TEU is



"Noting in particular the fact that representative democracy include

the common constitutional traditions shared by the Member States. Just

through representative democracy at the national level,

conferral of powers takes place, which originárními the wearer remain

Member States, the Union and its institutions. This baseline representative

democracy is then the Lisbon Treaty still emphasized the confession

the specific role of the national parliaments in controlling performance as follows

powers conferred on them. The fact that the European Parliament, elected directly

citizens of Member States of the Union on the basis of the principle of the so-called. declining balance

proportionality, performs at Union level some, but not all

features of the immanent representative national Corps, and primarily features

control and legislative, speaks volumes about the fact that this body plays

a complementary role in strengthening the transparency and democratic structures

the decision-making process, and not that of the Union itself through

becoming a State or that it has transferred the rights of parliaments

National. The European Union is therefore a sui generis system, in which

is an element of democratic representation based on legitimačním chain between the

the national parliaments and the Council and supplemented by horizontal element representation

in the European Parliament ".



49. In paragraphs 34 to 41 of its observations, the Government argues for the conclusion

formulated in paragraph 41, that



article. 17 TEU

"it is not in its opinion, in breach of article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution, even with

The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms "(to this allegation of the complainant

because of violation of the Lisbon Treaty with constitutional order, see point 14

the award). To the question of the alleged vagueness of the term "citizenship", the Government points out

the wording of this term in the other language versions. The Government states that, "in the

Czech translation maybe somewhat inappropriately chosen expression of European identity is

Therefore, in this context should be understood rather as» European

«engagement, loosely speaking, the basal values and loyalty to

General objectives of integration "(point 39 Government representation). Similarly, the Government

He argues with regard to the alleged conflict with the requirement of citizenship

the principle of political neutrality.



50. In paragraphs 42 to 44 of its observations, the Government argues for the conclusion

formulated in paragraph 44, that "does not share the plaintiffs ' claim, that the so-called Institute.

enhanced cooperation "prepared in



article. 20 TEU

"contradicts the principle of the sovereignty of the Czech Republic, and it is with regard to the

the above is satisfied that article. 20 TEU is not in conflict with article. 1 (1). 1

even with the article. the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC "(10A to this complainant alleged reason

violation of the Lisbon Treaty with constitutional order, see point 15 of the award).

The Government in its comments section 42 States that



"the purpose of enhanced cooperation is to allow certain Member States

integrate within the Union more quickly and ensure that this

cooperation will be the other Member States in the event of a subsequent

interest at any time in advance, clearly defined conditions. From these

reasons, it is quite logical that the Lisbon Treaty, similar to the already valid

The EU Treaty will establish enhanced co-operation between the Group

the Member States, subject to compliance with the conditions laid down and approved by the

Of the Council. If you will be some EU Member States wish to establish cooperation

outside the scope of the Union and without the use of its institutional

structures, and such cooperation will not be in conflict with the obligations of such

States arising from their membership in the Union, the Treaty of Lisbon in them

This does not put any restrictions. Unlike the enhanced cooperation within the meaning of

article. 20 TEU, however, in this case, the other Member States of the Union cannot

guarantee that participating States will allow them to such cooperation among

EU framework to connect ".



51. in this respect, the Government adds that "in the areas of shared competence

the principle that applies in the extent to which the Union has not exercised a jurisdiction

or has decided to cease exercising, its performance belongs to the Member

States ' (point 43 of the representation of the Government). In the opinion of the Governments of the Member

States these Union yet one betrothed party convicted authority to exercise individually.

and together, on the condition that the exercise of these powers in the

contrary to the obligations of Member States arising from their membership of the

in the EU. However, as the Government further explains,



"in the case of enhanced cooperation within the meaning of article. 20 TEU, however, already is a

qualitatively different situation, since this cooperation shall be implemented in

the framework of the objectives and scope of the Union and in the framework of the EU's integration process,

that can be prohlubován and in this way strengthened by and between closer

Group (at least nine) Member States. The Member States involved in the

enhanced cooperation shall exercise the powers of the Union, namely, the non-exclusive, not

the powers of its own, as is explicitly and clearly stated in the article. 20 (2). 1

Of the TEU. If you will be in the framework of the enhanced cooperation qualified

adopted legal acts will have the quality of Community law with all the

respective attributes "(point 43 of the Government representation).



52. In paragraphs 45 to 51 of its observations, the Government argues for the conclusion

formulated in paragraph 51 that "



article. 21. 2 (a). h) TEU

is not in conflict with article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC, nor with article. 2 (2). 1 of the Charter

fundamental rights and freedoms "(for this reason the complainant alleged

violation of the Lisbon Treaty with constitutional order, see point 16 of the award),

and what about the argument refers to the similar arguments

plaintiffs and complements the comparative linguistic interpretation of it, with the help of

which Government holds the belief that "the EU Member States not to

the negotiation of the Treaty of Lisbon on the mind of good governance in

the meaning of responsible exercise of public authority to subordinate entities,

that is effectively implemented only within the State, as is mistakenly appellants

consider, as a responsible political decision to

equivalent partners, which has lead to the creation and retention of

the global order "(point 48 of the Government representation).



53. In paragraphs 52 to 58 of its observations, the Government argues for the conclusion

formulated in paragraph 58, that the possibility of creating a common EU defence,

enshrined in the



article. paragraph 42. 2 counsellors. 1 TEU

, is not in conflict with article. 1 (1). 1 or with the article. 10A of the Constitution (to this
the complainant therefore alleged violation of the Treaty of Lisbon with the constitutional

policy see point 17 of the award). Firstly, the Government considers it necessary to oppose the

the claim of the petitioner (contained in paragraph 131 of the proposal), that "the new text

The Maastricht Treaty, another alternative than the emergence of a common defence

not be admitted ". According to the Government, this claim is "in direct contradiction with the wording

article. 42 TEU ". According to the Government, it is "obvious that from a legal point of view, it is

embedded option unanimously decide on common defence, but is

left to the political discretion of Member States ' representatives in the European Council,

whether such a decision is taken. In any case, it is not a

failure to comply with a legal obligation, which would mean the violation of contractual

obligations. In other words, a common defence, when the European about it

the Council, in an undisclosed future time shall decide solely on the

the basis of its political considerations, without being legally bound "(both

quote from section 53 representation of Governments). Furthermore, the Government draws attention to the need to

the approval of such a decision by all Member States in accordance with their

provisions (point 54 Government representation). The Government is also convinced that the



"the plaintiffs ' claims regarding the inability to transfer any powers

regarding the defense of the international organization is unsustainable. If you would

matters relating to Defense has actually been a basic attribute

the sovereignty of the CZECH REPUBLIC, whose conservation would not allow the defense to make

the subject of international commitments, lacked the whole provisions of article. 43

The Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC. It is evident that both the implementation of the international

contractual obligations on common defence against attack (article 43, paragraph 1,

The Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC), the participation of the CZECH REPUBLIC in the defence systems of international organisations

the CZECH REPUBLIC is a member of the (article 43, paragraph 2, of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC), as well as stay armed

the forces of other States on the territory of the CZECH REPUBLIC (article 43, paragraph 3, of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC), clearly

represent the sharing of powers in the area of defence, of course, on the basis of the

applicable international commitments of the CZECH REPUBLIC as a sovereign

State in compliance with the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC established procedures. The adoption of such

contractual obligations expressly allows the article. 49 (b). (b)) of the Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC, which

as one of the so-called "categories. » Presidential contracts «provides category

» Allied peacekeeping contracts, and other policy «"(point 55 comments

the Government).



54. In that context, the Government draws attention to the membership of the Czech Republic

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization

-NATO-North Atlantic Treaty [Washington, D. C., April 4, 1949].

For the Czech Republic entered into force in accordance with the wording of article 10

the Treaty on 12 June 2006. March 1999 and was declared under the No 66/1999 Coll.) and

the consequences arising therefrom, even with regard to the article. paragraph 42. 7 counsellors. 2

Of the TEU.



55. In paragraphs 59 to 61 of its observations, the Government argues for the conclusion

formulated in paragraph 61 that



article. paragraph 50. 2 to 4 of the TEU

"governing the procedure for withdrawal of a Member State of the Union is not in breach of

with the article. 1 (1). 1 or with the article. 10A of the Constitution "(to this allegation of the complainant

because of violation of the Lisbon Treaty with constitutional order, see point 18

the award). In that connection, the Government recalled the conclusions of the Constitutional Court

expressed in paragraph 106 of its discovery pl. ÚS 19/08, "an explicit

articulation [options from Union] in the Treaty of Lisbon is

the undisputed principle of the confirmation States are the Masters of the Treaty and

the continuing sovereignty of the Member States ". According to the Government "adjustment procedure

for the performances is the expression of the common will of the then Member States address the

future relationships contracted, consensually and complex (which is in

the case of such integration a whole undoubtedly desirable) "(point 59

the observations of the Government).



56. For reasons of breach of the Treaty of Lisbon hardened with the constitutional order,

that the appellant stated in



(III) small print design

(on this point, see point 19 of the small print design award), the Government points out that the

the plaintiffs are challenging provisions of the



article. paragraph 78. 3 TFEU and article. paragraph 79. 1, TFEU

"without attention to systematic interpretation of those provisions,

whether it's about the very concept of an area of freedom, security and justice,

international commitments in the area of asylum policy, the permeability of the internal

borders, the protection of external borders and visa policy and the efforts of the

for a comprehensive solution to legal and illegal migration. Ignorance and the

the provisions of the TFEU, which contradicts their argument, even literal text

These provisions "(point 62 of the Government representation). To the provisions of the article. 78

paragraph. 3 TFEU, the Government states that it is necessary to have in mind, "it's just

Member States in the Council on such measures, and in

the benefit concerned or the Member States concerned. This provision is

should be interpreted in the context of the application of the principles of solidarity and

fair distribution of responsibility between the Member States, and even on the

financial level "(paragraph 63 representation of Governments). To the provisions of the article. paragraph 79. 1

TFEU then the Government "considers it necessary to especially highlight paragraph 5

the same article, which completely ignored the promoters. " According to the Government, "this

provisions of the Member States guarantees the right to determine volumes of admission

third-country nationals entering their territory with the

the aim of the search work or conduct business as a self-employed person. This is

a particularly important regulatory mechanism that should remain

internal labour market protection against unwanted (decline)

the influx of expatriates moving freely for work

in the framework of the common market of the Union ' (paragraph 64 of the Government representation). On

the basis of that "the Government believes that the plaintiffs ' claims as referred to in

Part III of the proposal are clearly unsubstantiated. Article. paragraph 78. 3 and article. 79

paragraph. 1, TFEU in the opinion of the Government are not in conflict with article. 1 (1). 1

The Constitution "(point 65 expression of Government).



57.



point IV of the small print of the proposal

the Government states that "the Constitutional Court is not to discuss this proposal is factually

appropriate, therefore, that in the event of a decision to

It is a category of international agreement, which is subject to prior

the review of the constitutionality of [...], and therefore that the Constitutional Court is the only

asked to authoritatively stated the truth of a particular legal

the opinion "(paragraph 66 of the Government representation).



(D).



Representation of the President of the Republic



58.16 June. October 2009 was the Constitutional Court President

of the Republic. Be broken down into five parts marked with the letters A to E.



59.



parts and

, called the "Preamble", the President of the Republic recalls

the socio-political context of the approval of the Lisbon Treaty, welcomes the

the proposal of the Group of senators, and notes that "Although the Constitutional Court in the

things the Lisbon Treaty already expressed, it was only to its

the details, and not to the Treaty as a whole ". In the opinion of

the President of the Republic, "an earlier assessment of intermediate passages of the Lisbon

the contract is not a guarantee that could disprove the doubts as to the

compatibility of the Lisbon Treaty with our constitutional order. Today's task

The Constitutional Court is completely different, and therefore not comparable to the one that had

in the autumn of last year ". To the previous review of the Lisbon Treaty

the President of the Republic still returns in the last paragraph of the first section of its

comments:



"Due to the fact that the previous examination of the accordance of the Lisbon Treaty with the

the constitutional order of the CZECH REPUBLIC was based on a specific approach, when the constitutional

the court judged just the provisions that the Senate then attacked, and

neposuzoval the Lisbon Treaty comprehensively and management, were not seriously

assessed and weighed, nor my arguments that I stated in my

opinion of June 2008. On my extensive comments answered when

The Constitutional Court of a single sentence. The current administration senators, that is a range

the contested provisions of the much wider, gives an opportunity to reflect on

the issue of the Lisbon Treaty comprehensively and opens thereby

the opportunity to return to my previous arguments. ".



60.



part (B)

the President of the Republic Mr observations from June 2008 (made in

the proceedings in the sp.. PL. ÚS 19/08). The President of the Republic

believes that "in the context of the proceedings nor later did not get a full and compelling

the response "to the five questions in this comments made. These questions in

submitted comments are repeated.



61. The first question raised by the President of the Republic, was: "will remain United

Republic even after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty the sovereign State

and the full body of the international community, are eligible

separately and fully comply with the obligations resulting from the

international law? ". In the opinion of the President of the Republic to the constitutional

"the Court sidestepped direct answers and came up with a new theory of sovereignty

shared together, the European Union and the Czech Republic (and other

Member States) ". The President of the Republic States:



"The concept of shared sovereignty, although the last time quite often

used, but only in the nerigorózních debates. It is itself a contradiction in terms.

Not only that, our rule of law, the concept of shared sovereignty «knows», but he doesn't know

even the right of the European Union. Was used only in the decision of the European

Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2007-2013 the programme
Citizens for Europe to promote active European citizenship, where the

States that»



A culture of shared sovereignty-and not surrender the sovereignty-that is

the culture and identity of today's European citizen, and the more the citizen

of the future

«. Of course, this cannot be the basis for any legal argument ".



62. In the following paragraph, the President of the Republic represents your

the concept of sovereignty: "sovereignty is the essence of unlimited power.

The sharing of sovereignty disputes ". According to the President of the Republic "brought

in the wake of this opinion of the Constitutional Court [President of the Republic has apparently

referring to the concept of sovereignty expressed by the Constitutional Court in its finding of Pl.

TC 19/08] suggests that in the European Union no overlord in the classic words

the meaning of the will. This is a very dangerous social arrangement ".

The President of the Republic concludes:



"I don't think that this type of sovereignty meant the Czech

ústavodárce, when formulated in 1992, article 1 of the Constitution. From the answers

The Constitutional Court also implies the answer to the second part of this question:

the Republic as a body of the international community is not plnoprávná and its

international commitments can fully comply with only together with

The European Union. It was not for me and is not an acceptable response. ".



63. The second question, to which the President of the Republic was looking for in the proceedings before the

The Constitutional Court, the answer was: "it is the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty on the

the direct effect of the national legislation of the European Union in accordance with

article. 10 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic? ". In the opinion of the President of the Republic "on

This question, the Constitutional Court did not provide an answer at all. The issue is

[according to the President of the Republic] touched only by reference to the case of the so-called.

sugar quotas. ".



64. the third question, the President of the Republic by his expression he said:

"Has the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union the legal status of the international

the contract referred to in article. 10A of the Constitution and, if so, are all of its provisions

in accordance with the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms of the Czech Republic, respectively.

the other part of the constitutional order? ". In the opinion of the President of the Republic of

"on the first part of the question, the Constitutional Court did not give a direct answer. Of the award

You can only indirectly infer, that the Constitutional Court considers the Charter of fundamental

rights of the European Union under the international treaty, and that the Charter is not in conflict with

The Constitution. Express the answer, however, was not granted. “.



65. The fourth question, the President of the Republic asked whether the European Union

will remain "after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon International

organizations, or institutions, to which article. 10A the Constitution allows transfer

the powers of the authorities of the Czech Republic. “. According to the President of the Republic

"The Constitutional Court has not provided any answer.".



66. Finally, the fifth question put: "If the President of the Republic

The Lisbon Treaty amends the Treaty indirectly Access,

then implicitly on the Lisbon Treaty, the constitutional law no 515/2002

Coll., on the referendum on the accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union (in the

which would then be necessary to amend, in particular, the question for the referendum)?

Does not have to be therefore consent to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the subject of

the referendum? ". Here, the President of the Republic states that "this question as

only the Constitutional Court said, even if my query apparently misunderstood. ".

According to the understanding of the President of the Republic:



"The Constitutional Court has stated that a referendum is possible, but that the decision

It is not for the Constitutional Court, but the political authorities. I, however, he said,

whether already approved the constitutional law on the referendum on the accession of the Czech

Republic to the European Union applies or does not apply and the Lisbon

the Treaty. The changing conditions of our approach, and it's a very significant

way. ".



67. the President of the Republic is reminiscent of the explanatory memorandum to the constitutional law

No 515/2002 Coll. (in his opinion, "approved by the Government and Parliament

The Czech Republic ") and quotes the following passage from it:



"the wording of the article. 10A Constitution alternatively as a condition

the ratification of international treaties, which are transferred some powers

the authorities of the Czech Republic on the international organization or body, either

approval of a three-fifth majority of all the members and a three-fifth majority

Senators present, or



approval of the referendum

. The draft law this general formulation instantiates, so that in case of

ratification of the Treaty of accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union is

need prior approval in a referendum, as only it can decide

on the accession to the European Union;



Specifies one of the options listed in the cited article. 10A

. The process of the ratification of the other type-defined international agreements with

the Bill does not deal with, will be the subject of future decisions of the Parliament ".



From the President of the Republic concludes, "that already in 2002 the Parliament

The Czech Republic assumed, that under article. 10A of the Constitution, should

the future should be to transfer some of the powers of the authorities of the Czech

Republic on the international organization or institution, it should so state

the referendum ". In the opinion of the President of the Republic, the Constitutional Court



"not at all addressed the question of whether the Treaty of Lisbon, which has

to ratify more than five years from the date 1. in May 2004, i.e.. from the date of

the accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union, does not alter the conditions under

which the citizens expressed in the referendum on the accession of the Czech Republic to

The European Union, and that it is therefore not necessary to adopt a new law on the referendum,

which the citizens responded to the question of consent to the amendments adopted by the

The Treaty of Lisbon. "



68. In conclusion, the President of the Republic, part B, proclaims: "all of these

issues the Constitutional Court must give a direct answer. ".



69.



part (C)

the President of the Republic, a group of Senators and the proposal to examine with their

the reservations expressed consent. In conclusion to this part of the President of the Republic

welcomes the efforts of their "final enumeration to define the characters of the so-called. material

the core of the constitutional order, more specifically a sovereign democratic

the rule of law ". The President of the Republic believes that "If the Constitutional Court

This definition shall take, or is another, similar to the way defines,

could be avoided in the future by an ad-hoc defining these characters in the

currently still under discussion in the context of the cases ". In the opinion of the President of the

the Republic would be significantly strengthened the degree of legal certainty for citizens and

the State authorities.



70.



part (D)

the President of the Republic on the proposal of the Group of Senators back to the cancellation of the

selected provisions necessitated both chambers of the Parliament (SP. zn. PL.

TC 26/09) and notes that the Constitutional Court rejected it, "without it

researched in more detail. " The President of the Republic "have no choice but to express the above

This procedure of the Constitutional Court by regret, because these

serious questions remain unanswered as the Czech statehood and may in the

the future be the subject of other disputes ".



71. In the final



part (E)

the President of the Republic proposes



"the Constitutional Court decided clearly, specifically and with a detailed justification of the

accordance of the Lisbon Treaty as a whole with article 1, paragraph 1. 1 of the Constitution, respectively.

with article 2, paragraph 1. 1 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, and to state whether the

Czech Republic will remain even after the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the sovereign,

a unified and democratic rule of law based on respect for the rights and

freedoms of man and citizen. ".



72. On 23 December 2005. October 2009, the Constitutional Court was delivered by

the President's legal representative Ales Pejchala



additions representation of President of the Republic

. In it, the President of the Republic with the addition of the design group

the senators and then draws the attention of the Constitutional Court, that did

assess the compatibility of the Lisbon Treaty with the Constitution with regard to the

whether "leaving the principle of consensus in the area of covering space

freedom, security and justice and the introduction of the principle in this area

the majority vote of the representatives of the Executive of each of the Member

States of the European Union, there is no violation of article. 10A of the Constitution, since after

factual in the page is not about the transfer of the powers of the authorities of the Czech Republic

the international organization, but the Group States that in the Czech Republic

promote your own interests "přehlasují. In the opinion of the President of the

"the transfer of the powers of the authorities of the Republic of Czech Republic in the other State or

a group of States Article 10a of the Constitution does not allow ".



III.



Course of an oral hearing



73. In oral proceedings before the Constitutional Court, which was held on 27.

October 2009, by Senator Jiri Oberfalzer of the claimant and the

authorised legal representative Jaroslav Kuba, Chamber of Deputies

Parliament of the Czech Republic, its Chairman, Miloslav Vlček Czech Senate

the Republic of its Chairman, Přemysl Sobotka, the President of the Republic by

authorised legal representative Aleš Pejchal, and for the Government of the Czech Republic

Minister for European Affairs Stefan Füle.



74. The legal representative of the applicant, with reference to the provisions of § 37

paragraph. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court, the objection of partiality of the judge-rapporteur

Pavel Rychetský, with doubts about his impartiality was motivated

the fact that the text of article published in the online edition of the Folk

newspapers from the 30. 9.2009 called "the German Ambassador questioned

Rychetský on the fate of Lisbon ", among others. stated that "the German Ambassador

two weeks ago, personally ordered the President of the Court, Pavel Rychetský
and acted with him even on the Lisbon Treaty. The popular newspaper confirmed

judge. Ambassador Johannes Haindl et al by Rychetský

wonder how long it will take before the Court hands down a judgement (sic!).

As in that article, to be honest (sic!), meeting ...

taken aback by the senators, who have lodged a constitutional complaint (sic!) ".



75. The Constitutional Court interrupted the proceedings and after the opposition decided by resolution

as follows: "Judge Pavel Rychetský, is not excluded from the hearing and

decision-making in the case conducted under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 29/09 ". In the details

refers to the said resolution available on http://nalus.usoud.cz.



76. In continuation of the oral proceedings, the Chairman of the Constitutional Court briefly

content of the proposal along with recounted the addition made by the applicant and

submissions of the parties and invited the representative of the Government to provide, in

accordance with the call made by the judge-rapporteur 26 March. October 2009,

a copy of the resolution to the Government of the Czech Republic of 13 October. December 1995 No.

732 application of the Czech Republic for admission to the European Union, together with the

applications and the memorandum attached to this application. The representative of the Government

He made copies of these documents and are delivered in an oral break

negotiations and other participants in the proceedings.



77. the applicant has submitted to the mouth of his legal representative a document entitled

"Tweens and refine the small print of the proposal with the reasoning" (hereinafter "the second

Supplement ") and briefly summarized its contents. Copies of the second supplement

the President of the Constitutional Court delivered the other participants a short way

directly in the course of the oral proceedings.



78. the applicant in this second supplement by your words "complements and

refining the design of the petit "29. September 2009 and its addendum of 15 July.

October 2009 as follows: a point and the small print of the proposal, as formulated in the second

Supplement, reads: "the Lisbon Treaty (consolidated version) as a whole,

(The Maastricht Treaty as a whole and the Treaty of Rome as a whole) is contrary to

Article 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution, and article 2, paragraph 1. 1 [of the Charter] ". In point (II)

small print design projector makes the following changes:



-article. 7. 3 TEU zpochybněný already in the original proposal (see paragraph 11

This award; in the original proposal and its supplement, however, the applicant

questioned the article. 7 of the TEU as a whole and then to its specific formulation)

appellant also contradict the article. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution,



-article. 9 of the TEU has appellant contravene article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution,



-article. 13 (3). 1 TEU and article. 47 of the TEU has the appellant contravene article.

10A, paragraph. 1 of the Constitution,



-article. 14 paragraph. 2 of the TEU has provided the petitioner to contradict article. 1 of the Charter,



-article. 17 paragraph. 1 and 3 of the TEU zpochybněný already in the original proposal (see point 14

This award; However, the appellant questioned the supplement in only the second

subparagraph of article. 17 paragraph. 3 TEU) has the appellant to resist also

article. 21. 4 of the Charter,



-article. 19 paragraph. 1 TEU by the petitioner to contradict article. paragraph 87. 2

The Constitution of the



-article. paragraph 50. 2, 4 of the TEU zpochybněný already in the original proposal (see point 18

This award) by the petitioner to contradict article. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution.



79. In the context of the article. 8 SEU zpochybněným already in the original proposal (see

point 12 of this award), the applicant in the second supplement does not indicate contradiction

specific wording as in the original proposal; for the article. 7 TEU in

This second Tween projector shows only its paragraph 3; for the article. 50

TEU in this second Tween projector shows only a paragraph. 2, 4, and not

paragraphs 2 to 4, as was in the original proposal and its complement (see point

18.) these differences, however, may be attributed to the rather ledabylému processing

those submissions (as well as express questioning only the second

subparagraph of article. 17 paragraph. 3 in addition to the proposal of the TEU), than the intention to

the petitioner, and the Constitutional Court is, therefore, not consider relevant.



80. The above additions. modification of the text of the small print of the proposal

the appellant was motivated by the way of shrnutým in the following sections of this

the award (typing errors are corrected in quotes, not syntax).



81. the allegation of breach of



article. 7. with article 3 of the TEU. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution

:



"In the application of this power, the Council shall decide by qualified majority on

suspension of rights of a Member State, including the voting rights of the representatives of the

the Governments in the Council. This is to limit the powers of that Member State.

And it's impact on its citizens. The legal standard, that contains this rule,

enshrined in the [provisions of article 7, paragraph 3, TEU], and to reduce the power of the

a Member State which is primarily founded as a service to its citizens,

It is thus in direct conflict with the legal standard of the Czech constitutional order.

Specifically enshrined in [article 2, paragraph 3, of the Constitution], according to which the

State power is used for all citizens ".



82. The Constitutional Court Here notes that the same reasons for the projector

questioned the consistency of the article. with article 7 TEU. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution no longer in its original

the proposal (cf. point 11 of this award).



83. the allegation of breach of



article. with article 9 TEU. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution

:



"In the application of this law, the Institute shall apply the so-called» of the European

citizenship «, which is not derived from the Constitution, the constitutional order, respectively.

of the Member State. Considering that the Institute of citizenship is not the definition

the international character of the Organization, but to the State, the introduction of the so-called. » European

citizenship «also proves that the legal personality of the EU carries within the meaning of

the characters of the State. (With the legal personality of international organization

It would indicate the type of citizens of Member States of the European»

the Union ").



By then to limit the sovereignty of a Member State. Citizenship,

that entails legal consequences, Constitution of the CZECH REPUBLIC only in relation to the

State in the provisions of articles 1, 2, 12 and 100.



Of legal standards, the Institute, and enshrined in the [provisions of

article. 9 TEU], so not for the citizen of a Member State to exclude the emergence of even

conflicting responsibilities. Both emerging from the státoobčanského relation,

on the one hand emerging from the so-called. » Europeanism ". The emergence of citizenship with the legal

the consequences referred to in [article 9 TEU] citizen of the CZECH REPUBLIC is so inconsistent with the

the constitutional principle of the sovereignty of the CZECH REPUBLIC, enshrined in the [provisions of article 1

paragraph. 1 of the Constitution], cit:» Czech Republic is a sovereign, unified and

a democratic legal State. "



For its citizens as a result of the emergence of a European citizenship «» may

arise, for example. the dilemma of deciding between the responsibility of the State or the EU

the situation of possible conflict between them ".



84. the allegation of breach of



article. 13 (3). 1 TEU and article. with article 47 TEU. 10A, paragraph. 1 of the Constitution

the claimant States that "in the application of the legal provision cited

personality will manifest itself as the European Union legal personality

the State ". In the following parts of this allegation the appellant distributes and

concludes that the application of these provisions of the TEU



"it follows that the transfer of some powers to the EU and its institutions will bring

the loss of Member State options to defend their sovereign members

before the effects of the coming from outside the restriction of their fundamental rights.

As the body to which these powers are transferred, it has a legal

personality of the State, and not the legal personality of international organization

or institution. Therefore, [are] [provisions in conflict with

article. 10A, paragraph. 1 of the Constitution]. Which provides that the international treaty may»

be some of the powers of the authorities of the Czech Republic passed on the international

organization or institution, and therefore not to another State ".



85. the allegation of breach of



article. 14 paragraph. 2 of the TEU with the article. 1 of the Charter

the applicant points out that, as a result of its application "to the fact that

the most populous state, the citizens will have a max. 750členném [the European

Parliament] to 12, 6% of the representatives, while constructed the weakest only 0.8

%.“. The applicant infers from that violation of the principle of equality, enshrined

in the abovementioned provisions of the Charter.



86. the allegation of breach of



article. 17 paragraph. 1 and 3 of the TEU with the article. 21. 4 of the Charter of

:



"In [article. 17 paragraph. 3 TEU] States: "..., the members of the European Commission are

selected according to their general competence and European commitment. " «Content» citizenship

is not defined, can be used for discrimination, etc. But above all, it is not

excluded his transformation in the sole ideology, distorting the EU

pluralism and democratic values on which it was founded.



As distinguished from the conflict already in so it's not just the problem of «CZECH REPUBLIC».



The mentioned provisions of the TEU so contradicts [article 21, paragraph 4, of the Charter].:

» State ... (is) not ... bind ... the sole ideology. " And, by extension,

I [article 21, paragraph 4, of the Charter].:» citizens under equal conditions

access to elected and other public functions ".



87. Similarly, in relation to arguments raised concerning contradicting article. 7

Of the TEU with the article. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution (see paragraph 82 of this award), the Constitutional Court

notes that this in fact reproduces the original proposal

(see point 14 of this award).



88. the allegation of breach of



article. 19 paragraph. 1 TEU with the article. paragraph 87. 2 of the Constitution

the applicant States that the "interpretation of the law the Court of Justice of the European Union is

one of the sources of the so-called. «Community law». And that has, according to the statement «»

annexed to the final act of the Intergovernmental Conference under the point» and «as

» Statement of the provisions of the treaties «17» Declaration of priority rights «»

precedence over the law of the Member State ". According to the applicant, therefore,



"it will be the interpretation of any additions or changes to the Lisbon Treaty by the
the Court of Justice of the European Union take precedence over their interpretation of the Constitutional Court

Member State of the EU. And that's when the decisions of the international

the Treaty with the Constitution or the constitutional order.



By subsequently competent to limit the powers of the Constitutional Court

that is, in the case of [the CZECH Constitutional Court] enshrined in [article 87, paragraph 2

The Constitution, in terms of which] and to decide on the compliance of the international treaty

According to the article. 10A and article. 49 with the constitutional order, and that prior to its ratification.



Legal standard that contains this rule in [the provisions of article 19, paragraph 1, TEU]

so putting the European Union Court of Justice in the interpretation of the so-called. «Contracts»

(meant in the Lisbon Treaty) and, in the cases of their interpretation of the constitutional

Court of a Member State of the EU. And that's when his decisions on compliance

The Treaty of Lisbon in the texts of any amendments and additions to the international

the Treaty with the Constitution or the constitutional order of the Member State.



This is in direct conflict with the legal standard of the Czech constitutional order,

enshrined in the [provisions of article 87, paragraph 2, of the Constitution]. That allows you to

[Constitutional Court] claims an independent judgement concerning the interpretation

the international treaty, according to the article. 10A and article. 49, will decide on its

accordance with the constitutional order of the CZECH REPUBLIC. At the same time it introduces a dependency

the interpretation of the Constitution on the standard contained in a legal document. "



89. Finally, contrary to the allegation of



article. paragraph 50. 2, 4 of the TEU with the article. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution

the claimant States that "the performance [is] bound to the conditions unilaterally

the specified guidelines of the European Council. As per paragraph. 4 its a Member

representing the State in her acting, not to participate in its deliberations ".

According to the applicant, therefore, cannot be ruled out "that the conditions contained in the agreement

the speeches may be for the acting State eg. to economically

the winding-up, and forces him to take back his decision. Or apply-and again

It's not just the CZECH REPUBLIC-that has to be the law of the Member State to withdraw from the EU

limited, so at least for conditions of known before its accession ".

Directly to the alleged violation of the applicant States that the



"If, according to paragraph 2(a). 4 the European Council or of the Council representing the

acting State may not participate in negotiations relating to its State

so by the so-called. » «The Lisbon Treaty for the said process limits and

the potential of the withdrawing State to serve its citizens. And at the same time their

the law in this direction. This is contrary to [article 2, paragraph 3, of the Constitution], according to which,

CIT:» State power serves all citizens. "".



90. the Chairman of the Constitutional Court After the query has confirmed the legal representative of the

the appellant continued to insist on other points of the small print that have not already been

again listed in the second supplement. It also confirmed that the points (II) and (III)

the appellant understood as possible to the point of even small print.



91. In the final speech, Senator Jiri Oberfalzer, representing

the petitioner, returned to the contents of the previous proposals and their Tween

submitted by the applicant and, above all, reviewing the content extensively

observations in case sp.. PL. ÚS 26/09. The legal representative of the applicant

then, in their speeches the same gamble with points from 70 to 76 of the award pl. ÚS 19/08.

The Constitutional Court here just for completeness of notes, then, what was the

closed evidence, presented the final speech, and Constitutional Court

He went to a final consultation, he was 30. October 2009 delivered more

the submission of the appellant, through his counsel. Due to the

the timing of this administration, and whereas, according to your content

Obviously it was not a proposal for initiation, filing was delayed [§

41 (a). and the Act on the Constitutional Court)].



92. The legal representative of the President of the Republic reiterated the questions

raised by the President in his statement (see paragraphs 60 to 68 of this award)

and then he quoted extensively from the above memorandum annexed to the request

The Czech Republic, for admission to the European Union (see paragraph 76 of this award).

He pointed out that the nature of the European Union, in the opinion of the President

Republic of Lisbon Treaty fundamentally changes compared to what

the character of the Union now.



93. Representatives of both chambers of the Parliament of the Czech Republic "Latvian

the contents of their written observations, and once again reminded that the Constitutional Court

is already assessing the accordance of the Lisbon Treaty with constitutional order

comprehensively dealt with in the management of the SP. zn. 19/08 with a positive result.



94. The representative of the Government of the first, reviewing the content of the written submissions

the Government, and then submit a separate statement to the addition to the proposal, in

the conclusion said that the Government is convinced that the individual articles of the TFEU

contested in the supplement are not in conflict with the constitutional order. Expressed with

also expressing their views to the President. At the end of his speeches

He stated that "the Government of the Czech Republic underwent the Lisbon Treaty, the proposal

a group of senators, including his later additions, and comments

President of the Republic a thorough legal analysis, on the basis of which came

to the conclusion that the Treaty of Lisbon in individual infected parts,

and even as a whole is not in conflict with the constitutional order of the Czech

of the Republic ".



IV.



The definition of the scope of the review



95. Before the Constitutional Court shall proceed to the review of the Lisbon

of the Treaty, it is necessary to define the extent to which he is entitled to this contract

review, primarily with regard to your previous find pl. ÚS

19/08. In this context, before the Constitutional Court raised three questions. For

First, the extent to which the Constitutional Court prevent its previous decision in

the next review of the Treaty of Lisbon (obstacle rei iudicatae, section below

And For the second.), the question of whether the Treaty of Lisbon, where appropriate,

the Treaty, which this Agreement amends (hence the TEU and the TFEU), as a whole, and

related content limits of the review of international treaties (below

section B). Finally, the third of the Constitutional Court considers it necessary to remind the

the basic principles of management concerning the compliance of international agreements within the meaning of article. 87

paragraph. 2 of the Constitution and related provisions of the law on the Constitutional Court, and it

especially with regard to the possibility of misuse of this procedure to the unconstitutional

obstrukčním practices (section (C) below).



And the.



Obstacle things judicata in relation to finding pl. ÚS 19/08



96. In paragraph 78 of the award pl. ÚS 19/08, the Constitutional Court stated that the eventual

a new proposal on the review of this identical to the Lisbon Treaty would probably was

in relation to the contested provisions today blocked an obstacle



REI iudicatae

. Even then, however, the Constitutional Court pointed out that such assessment shall make

only then, if the new proposal actually filed; at the same time

point that the question



REI iudicatae

It is for such a case must be interpreted restrictively. The Constitutional Court

thus leaving the assessment of barriers



REI iudicatae

the open. The key is the definition in this respect, when will be the

"the same thing".



97. the concept of Their obstacles



REI iudicatae

corresponds to the double identity of unity: the provisions of the international treaty, which

the proposal is disputed, and at the same time the identity of the alleged reason his

contrary to the constitutional order, in the light of the provisions of the International was

contract reviewed in previous decisions and that has an obstacle



REI iudicatae

base. This iudicatae restrictive is an obstacle to rei in the

that puts more stringent requirements on the unity of things.



98. On the other hand, gives this obstacle rei iudicatae wider

the possibility of subsequent potential promoters to question the constitutionality of the

the international treaty, than if the identity of things such as occurred. no longer a mere

Unity once the revised provisions of the international treaty. It

corresponds to the notion of control referred to in article. paragraph 87. 2 of the Constitution, to which the

The Constitutional Court expressed in the already cited finding pl. ÚS 19/08 (paragraph 76)

as follows: "the sequence of the individual plaintiffs, as set out in section 71a

paragraph. 1 [of the law on the Constitutional Court], is guided by the idea of allowing each

from them the proper way to express doubts about the constitutionality of

the present international agreements. " If the first proposal on the review of the

the provisions of the international treaty could effectively block the other suggestions on

a review of the same provision, raised with regard to the possible contradiction with

the provisions of the constitutional order, which the Constitutional Court in the previous

the decision addressed the possibility of each potential applicant

express their doubts about the constitutionality of the present international

the Treaty would be largely meaningless.



99. The Constitutional Court, however, stresses that this sequence to the plaintiffs and

the consequences of it in the previous point, the Constitutional Court concludes

do not mean that any subsequent complaint (or potential

participants in the other control) allows you to again and again to question the Constitutional

the Court has already stated in the award of the conclusions regarding compliance

the international treaty (respectively. those provisions, which underwent

your review) with the constitutional order (also below section (C) of this section

the award). Finality, nezměnitelnost and also the binding nature of the final

the decision of the Constitutional Court, resulting from the article. 89 of the Constitution and

related provisions of the law on the Constitutional Court, fulfil the significant

features that reflect the status of the Constitutional Court, as the authority of the Court of

the type, not the question of the place or places for discussion primarily
the academic or political nature (cf. in this sense find Pl.

TC 19/08, paragraph 75).



100. The Constitutional Court is the constitutional authority of the gifted by article. paragraph 89. 2

The Constitution, the powers of the authoritatively and definitively interpreted

the provisions of the constitutional order, not a place for unending controversy, about the

they are trying to some participants. The finding of the Constitutional Court is enforceable

binding for all authorities and persons (article 89, paragraph 2, of the Constitutional Act No.

1/1993 Coll.), and therefore-how indeed means--is mandatory and

for the Constitutional Court. As a result, for any further proceedings

before him, in which should be (albeit divergent way) decided

again, in this sense represents another very important procedural obstacle



REI iudicatae

(section 35, paragraph 1, of Act No. 182/1993 Coll.), which naturally prevents

any other meritornímu review [find SP. zn. III. THE TC

425/97 of 2 December 1996. 4.1998 (N 42/10 SbNU 285), 287-288].



101. the arguments raised by the applicant in its supplement in relation to the

alleged violation of article. 2 and 4, TFEU (defining the powers of the Union) with the article. 1

paragraph. 1 and article. 10A of the Constitution (cf. to this alleged reason. paragraphs 26 to 29

This award), the Constitutional Court dealt with in detail in paragraphs 125 to 141

its award pl. ÚS 19/08; the same is true about the arguments raised by the

with regard to the alleged violation of article. 216 TEU with those provisions of the Constitution (to

This allegation of reason. point 31 of this award); in this respect,

the applicant does not even, that the Constitutional Court requesting

Revisiting its conclusion expressed in finding pl. ÚS 19/08 in recitals 176

up to 186. The Constitutional Court must therefore reject these proposals on the basis of the

the provisions of § 35 paragraph. 2 of the law on the Constitutional Court as inadmissible.

A related proposal on the review of the article. 3 TFEU refuse on this basis

You cannot, because it explicitly in your finding Pl. TC 19/08 Constitutional Court

did. At this point, however, the Constitutional Court refers to the same points

Discovery pl. ÚS 19/08, which is subject to review under article 13(2). 2 and 4, TFEU

with the constitutional order and the full fall and on the article. 3 TFEU.



102. On the other hand, although article 7 TEU actually has already been the subject of

a review in the framework of the management of sp.. PL. ÚS 19/08, the Constitutional Court is the reason

its possible conflict with article. 1 (1). 1 and article. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution, the next

the plaintiff in the now ongoing proceedings distract him (to these hardened

reasons, see. points 11 and 81 of this award and 205 to 210 points award Pl.

TC 19/08). Therefore its further review, in this proceeding, obstacle



REI iudicatae

does not prevent.



103. An obstacle



REI iudicatae

also applies to the representation of the President of the Republic, in which it formulates

"five questions", stating that "in the course of proceedings or later

get a complete and compelling answers. ". As already stated, the Constitutional Court

above in section 99 of this finding, the task of the Constitutional Court is not the answer

questions, but authoritatively decided; in this case, the line

the international treaty with constitutional order. Of doubt, the

the President of the Republic, in its representation of the returns, the Constitutional Court has already

been decided in its discovery pl. ÚS 19/08 and it cannot

refer to (see paragraphs 104 and 105 below).



104. This is true both for the first question, concerning the sovereignty of the Czech

Republic (where the Constitutional Court also refers to the part of the justification of this

the award, points 146 to 150, which relates to the applicant's argument,

that is substantively with the issue raised by the President of the Republic, overlaps).

The second question, concerning the effects of the law of the European Union on the

the national level, where the President of the Republic himself, in his expression of

mentions find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 50/04 of 8 May. 3.2006 (N 50/40 SbNU 443;

154/2006 Coll.), which provides the desired response, the Constitutional Court only

the following reference to paragraph 113 of its award pl. ÚS 19/08, and notes that the

direct the national effects of Community law have been for the Czech

Republic based moment of accession to the EU and is not in any

case derive from the Treaty of Lisbon. Regarding the third,

relating to the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union (where the Constitutional Court

reference is made to paragraphs 190 to 204 discovery pl. ÚS 19/08 and especially point 204,

where the Constitutional Court explicitly notes that it "did not find that the

-incorporation of the EU Charter of fundamental rights into European primary

the law however cast or problematizovala national standard

the protection of human rights and was contrary to the constitutional order of the Czech

of the Republic "), the Constitutional Court now adds that the question put

the President of the Republic in its representation is in terms of the assessment of conformity

Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union with a constitutional order completely

irrelevant. In relation to the fourth question, concerning the nature of the European

Union (to which the President of the Republic expressed in your tween

representation, rekapitulovaném in point 72 of this award and to which he returned

even the President's counsel on the hearing-see. paragraph 92 of the

the award), you can refer to section 104 Discovery pl. ÚS 19/08. Finally, to the question of

Fifth, that may not be consent to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty ratified in

a referendum under the constitutional law no 515/2002 Coll., refers to the Constitutional Court

on point 212 award pl. ÚS 19/08 and adds that, for the process of ratification of the

international treaties under article. 10A of the Constitution has not been adopted the general constitutional

the law and the choice of the method (or the consent of both chambers of the referendum

The Parliament) is still for all future cases in the hands of

the legislature. Finally, the Constitutional Court notes that replies to the

President of the Republic issues, which interprets as supporting

the argument for a general review of the Treaty of Lisbon, can be inferred with a

using standard procedures of those parts of the performance award, which

from top left, and does not believe that is was still needed in the wider

the range of divorce (even if it is in many ways did not hinder the obstacle



REI iudicatae

as defined above).



(B).



Proposal on the revision of the Lisbon Treaty and the agreements which this Treaty

from time to time, as a whole



105. In addition to the individual provisions of the Lisbon Treaty into question

promoters of the constitutionality of the Lisbon Treaty, but also of the TEU and the TFEU, "as

a whole "(see paragraphs 6 to 9 of the award). In its finding, pl. ÚS 19/08 while

The Constitutional Court has rejected a proposal to review the whole of the Lisbon Treaty

(supported in their submissions and the Government and the President of the Republic).

Instead, the Constitutional Court in point 74 of its award to the conclusion

(rising by analogy of its constant case-law in the field of

a review of the legislation, especially the award sp.. PL. ÚS 7/03,

A collection of findings and resolutions of the Constitutional Court, volume 34, finding no 113, s.

180-181, promulgated under Act No. 512/2004 Sb.)



focuses only on the design challenged and expertly justified

the provisions of the international treaty

. A similar character also has a procedure for the review of constitutionality of laws within the meaning of

§ 64 paragraph. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court; for example, the Constitutional Court there. said,

that, even if it is in the assessment of the constitutionality of legislation is bound only

petitem design, and not its reasoning, it does not imply the conclusion that

the plaintiff in the proceedings for the control of standards, argues the factual

non-compliance of legislation with the constitutional order, does not burden the burden

the allegation. Oppose-if the petitioner against content-related non-compliance of the law with

the constitutional order, for the purposes of constitutional review is not sufficient only

to cancel the designation of the proposed law. his individual

provisions, but is



necessary to include the reason for the alleged unconstitutionality

. The Constitutional Court in the context of the review is not this the reason bound; It is bound by the

only the petitem, but not the scope of the review of the reasons contained in the

design on control standards.



106. In contrast to the proposal made by the Senate in control sp.. Pl. ÚS

19/08, however, in that the present appellants submit a specific

the arguments, why should how the Treaty of Lisbon, the TEU and the TFEU should be

considered as a whole, for non-compliance with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic.

If the supporting argument for the rejection of the first proposal for a holistic

the review of the Lisbon Treaty and the argument of "epistemic" [see point 75 of the award.

TC 19/08: "attempting to completeness of the constitutional review, nota bene with consequences

the obstacles



REI iudicatae

and, especially for large normative texts, prevents the epistemic argument

(noeticky impossible) "there is a request] on the implementation of the proposal for the

a review of the contract as a whole.



107. For the eventual possibility of a review of the treaties as a whole is

the fact that the normative significance of international agreements cannot be inferred

only from its various provisions, but also (among other things) from its

the overall Systematics. The normative significance of international agreements is not just

the sum of the meanings of its individual provisions. The importance of Systematics

the international agreement for the assessment of its constitutionality, moreover,

confirmed by the Constitutional Court in the award itself Pl. TC 19/08, point 78, when stated (to the

a possible definition of the obstacles



REI iudicatae

): "If the [...] filed for a review of a new (different) contract

the document (though the content completely or partly identical with the Lisbon

the contract), then going to work (or not) about the identity of things, but on the

the identity problem.



Substantively the same provisions of such contract, however, the new document
in the new text, can find themselves in other functional bindings, etc. than

It is now

...“.



108. If, however, concerns proposals on holistic review of the TEU and the TFEU, the constitutional

the Court is entitled to such a review only to the extent that it is

The Lisbon Treaty as a whole, amended. On the contrary, due to the fact that as

Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European

the current version of the community must be on the basis of the contract between the

The Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of

Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French

Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,

Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic,

The Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of great

Britain and Northern Ireland (Member States of the European Union) and the Czech

Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, Latvia,

Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of

Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic

on the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus,

The Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of

Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic to the

The European Union, which was signed in Athens on 16 April 2003. April 2003

(published under no. 44/2004 Sb. m. s., hereinafter referred to as the "Treaty on the

the accession ") be considered ratified international agreement within the meaning of

article. paragraph 87. 2 of the Constitution, whose review is excluded (at this time to

This CF. find pl. ÚS 19/08, paragraphs 79 to 87).



109. The Constitutional Court therefore did not find reasons to reject the review apriornímu

The Lisbon Treaty as a whole, if they are in this respect by the applicant

raised the relevant constitutional arguments. In this respect, however, must

The Constitutional Court recalled its review content limits resulting from

his position in the constitutional system of the Czech Republic.



110. in the introductory part of its proposal, the applicant notes that the "basic

particulars of a democratic State Constitution unfortunately no closer

does not define "(paragraph 13 of the draft). According to the petitioner, the Constitutional Court "

This concept several times touched [here the appellant refers to find

SP. zn. PL. ÚS 19/93 of 21 December. 12.1993 (N 1/1 SbNU 1; 14/1994 Coll.)

find SP. zn. III. the TC 31/97 of 29 April 1997. 5. the 1997 (N 66/8 SbNU 149) and

find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 42/2000 of 24 January 2000. 1.2001 (N 16/21 SbNU 113;

64/2001 Coll.)], but even he has no coherent, comprehensive,

the closed interpretation which would in the future was immune to the immediate

political pressures and [so] to become the subject of ad hoc interpretations

affected by the currently increased cases "(paragraph 13 of the draft). In point

49 of the proposal then the appellant raises the requirement that the Constitutional Court has established

"the substantive limits on the transfer of powers", and in section 51 to 56, is trying to own

articulate and clearly inspired by the decision of the German

The Federal Constitutional Court of 30 June. June 2009, 2 BvE 2/08, available

on http://www. BVerfG. de/URentscheidungen/es20090630_2bve000208.html),

that such a catalogue provides in section 252 (cf. in particular points 51 to 56

the proposal).



111. The Constitutional Court, however, does not consider it possible to make with regard to the position,

in the constitutional system of the Czech Republic, such a catalog

nontransitive powers created and authoritatively determine "material limits

the transfer of powers, "as the appellant asks after him. Recalls that already in

its discovery pl. ÚS 19/08 stated that "these limits should be

left primarily to the specification of the lawmakers, because it is



a priori

on the question of the political, which provides a large field lawmakers ' discretion

(section 109). The responsibility for this political decision cannot be transferred to

The Constitutional Court; He is subject to its inspection only at the moment

was actually made at the political level.



112. For the same reasons, the Constitutional Court do not feel entitled to in the abstract

context, what is formulated in advance of the exact content of the article. 1 (1). 1

The Constitution, as requested by the applicant, supported by the President of the Republic,

that the efforts of the "ultimate list to define the characters of the so-called. material core

constitutional order, more specifically a sovereign democratic

the State "welcomes and provides (in agreement with the complainant) that could

"to avoid future an ad-hoc defining these characters in the context of the

currently still under discussion in cases "(point 69 of this award).



113. The Constitutional Court based on the fact that the specific cases he

can provide the relevant framework within which it is possible to interpretation,

from case to case, improve the content of the concept of "a sovereign, unified and

a democratic legal State, based on respect for the rights of man and of the citizen ".

Already, the Constitutional Court has made in the decisions referred to by the

plaintiff (see above paragraph 110 of this award), or for example. in the award

SP. zn. PL. ÚS 36/01 of 25 June. 6.2002 (N 80/26 SbNU 317; 403/2002

SB.) and the last time in finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 27/09 of 10 June 1999. 9.2009

(318/2009 Sb.). It is not yet a sign of arbitrariness, but on the contrary

judicial restraint and minimalism, which is perceived as a

the resource limitations of the judiciary in favour of the political procedures, and that

outweighs the absolute requirement of legal certainty (cf. in particular

Sunstein, c. r.: One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme

Court, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 209-243, directly to the

relationship of judicial minimalism and the requirement of legal certainty). The effort to

the definition of the concept of "a sovereign, unified and democratic legal State,

based on respect for the rights of man and of the citizen "once and for always (as

the petitioner requests supported by the President of the Republic), on the contrary, could

be understood as a manifestation of judicial activism, which is, after all, from the

some political actors has consistently criticized.



114. However, as is also apparent from other reasons, many of the arguments

in fact, the plaintiffs ' lead only against selected provisions

The Lisbon Treaty (or contracts that this Agreement amends). So

with them, the Constitutional Court also deal.



(C).



Reduce the potential for abuse of the procedure referred to in article protiústavního. paragraph 87. 2

The Constitution and the admissibility of the addition to the proposal



115. The Constitutional Court was to the opposition of the Government (points 40 and 41 of this award)

forced to deal with and the question of whether broad intervention in the management of

According to international agreements, the opening process space for raising

of doubt, the parties have not yet neratifikované of the international treaty, for

each potential applicant (cf. section 98 of this award),

on the other hand does not raise the intolerable risk of abuse of process

mechanisms before the Constitutional Court, the abuse that would hate

the purpose of this proceeding itself. That this is not a hypothetical account

the public, commonly known expression of some of the Group of senators,

which in this case acts as the appellant, indicating that the

This group joined with obstructive motivation in an attempt to prevent

ratification of the international treaty other than constitutional grounds.

Submission of nevážných or obmyslných proposals on the initiation of the proceeding and

abuse of judicial procedures, the protection of constitutionality can no doubt

affect whether or not a rejection of such proposals for overt manifestly unfounded,

or for the misuse of the right to bring proceedings, where appropriate

the way the police measures (article 61 of the law on the Constitutional Court), but this

the solutions may not always be applicable.



116. the purpose of the proceedings on compliance of an international treaty with constitutional order is

preemptively to eliminate the risk that the Czech Republic will take over the international

a commitment which would be in conflict with the constitutional order, or delete

doubts about the compliance of an international treaty with constitutional order yet

before the contract becomes mezinárodněprávně for the Czech Republic and

inside the Czech Republic legally binding, because internally they are then

solutions of its conflict with the constitutional order significantly limited

(cf.. Wagner E., Dostál M., Langášek t., Pace I.:

The Constitutional Court with the comment, Prague, ASPI and s., 2007, p. 298, 309-310).

From the nature of things, it is necessary to remove such doubts, without undue

the postponement. In the plane of international law, namely, the negotiation has already

the international treaty the Contracting Parties take on yourself the commitment that they will not

drag out its final decision unduly about the adoption or

non-acceptance of the contract, which follows from the principle of good faith (cf. Major Pace, M.

Public international law. The special part. 1. vyd. Prague, C. H. Beck,

1996, p. 161). It is in the plane of the rights of the national Associates,

the constitutional obligation, respectively, the President of the Republic without undue delay

ratify (i.e. formally confirm the proper conduct of a national externally

approval procedures) the international treaty, which has been duly

the President of the Republic or the Government of his credentials which negotiated and

the ratification of the agreement the democratically elected legislature,

in particular, as regards the international treaty under article. 10A Constitution approved

acting by a qualified majority of the members of the constitutional and the senators. It is the only and

only the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, according to the article. paragraph 87. 2 of the Constitution,

that, with regard to qualified raised doubts about compliance
the international treaty with constitutional order



ex constitutione

postponing the moment of ratification until after their removal

the authoritative decisions of the Constitutional Court, or, if found to be

the rift, after removal of non-compliance by changing the constitutional order (section 71e (3)

the law on the Constitutional Court).



117. The request for the urgent removal of doubts regarding compliance

the international treaty with constitutional order to process manifests itself in the

the provisions of § 71 d of paragraph 1. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court, according to which the

The Constitutional Court is obliged to discuss the proposal as an urgent, i.e.. without undue

delay and out of sequence, in which you received it, if any of it

of the parties to the proceedings, and in the strengthening of the principle officials of this

management, which arises from the provisions of section 71 d of paragraph 1. 2 of the law on the Constitutional Court,

that is the Constitutional Court obliged to draft, discuss and decide on it

even without the other proposals. This of course does not affect the permission of the Assembly,

The Constitutional Court to reach a conclusion about the need to discuss this matter as

urgent based on own discretion under section 39 of the Act on the Constitutional Court,

which in this case also happened by the resolution of the Constitutional Court of 29 June.

September 2009.



118. As regards the deadline for the submission of the proposal to initiate proceedings on compliance of

the international treaty with constitutional order, the law on the Constitutional Court

modifies only the origin explicitly for each potential

petitioner [cf. section 71a (1) (a) and (d))) the Act on the Constitutional

the Court, the arg. "... from the moment when..."]; the ultimate end of these limits is

then, the nature of matters defined by the moment of the ratification of the international treaty

[resolution SP. zn. PL. ÚS 1/04 of 4 January. 3.2004 (11/32 SbNU 519)]

a review of preventive, before its ratification (see article 87

paragraph. 2 of the Constitution); the explicit expression of the farthest end of the period in the text

the law on the Constitutional Court in this sense is redundant konstatací

obvious [cf. section 71a, paragraph 1 (b), (d)), the law on the Constitutional Court

comparison with section 71a, paragraph. 1 (a). (b)), and (c))]. This period therefore definitively

time surrounds the space in which the Constitutional Court has the power to

an international treaty to deal preventively, and therefore the space in which it may

petition to receive from any of the possible

plaintiffs.



119. The interpretation, that the proposal to initiate the procedure under section 71a (a). b), c) and (d))

the law on the Constitutional Court is not limited by any deadline, that these appellants

can the proposal arbitrarily, would get into quite insoluble

conflict with the requirement that the President of the Republic of international treaty-

Once all the obstacles are removed-ratified without undue

the postponement. With regard to the above defined the purpose of the proceedings, the Constitutional Court had to

necessarily come to the conclusion that the opening of the proceedings on compliance of international agreements

by a group of senators, a group of MPs and the President of the Republic

must be limited to the same deadline, in what should be an international agreement

ratify, IE. the deadline without undue delay.



120. the period without undue delay, of course, does not mean immediately; otherwise,

would never have been possible proceedings before the Constitutional Court effectively

start and check the entire preventive constitutionality would be limited to

cases in which the Constitutional Court reverses the House of Parliament before the

than agreed with the ratification itself. Such an interpretation would go completely

clearly the meaning of the definition in against abetting section 71a, paragraph. 1 of the law on

Finally, the Constitutional Court and also against his broad conception of what

in the previous award Pl. TC 19/08 Constitutional Court alone. A reasonable

postponement of the ratification. postponing the time when can no longer be on the constitutional

the Court, therefore, cannot be described as a reprieve. It is also completely, from the

in terms of the Constitution, fair, President of the Republic to postpone the ratification of the

the international treaty on the reasonable period of time, so that at this time could

difference of the minority members of Parliament or senators to effectively exercise its right to

before the Constitutional Court, in order to avoid doubts about the constitutionality of

negotiated international treaty. The same is true, if he would be on the constitutionality of

the international treaty, the President of the Republic himself doubts and put down if they

the ratification of the international treaty on the reasonable period of time, so that alone could in

This time the international treaty before the Constitutional Court challenge.

Assessment of the adequacy of such a delay, however, must reflect the fact

the text of the international treaty is fixed in place at the time when the

submitted to Parliament for assent to the ratification, so all

MEPs and all Senators can introduce in detail; from this

It is also possible to assume, that it appears the opposition views on

its constitutionality (cf. find pl. ÚS 19/08, paragraph 75). In relation to the

President of the Republic must supplement that he knows the contents of the international

the Treaty even before it agreed to use, or from its authorised

negotiated as his



alter ego

the Government.



121. In the present case, the Lisbon Treaty was negotiated by the Government of the Czech

Republic of 13 October. December 2007 in Lisbon, the Chamber of Deputies and

The Senate was presented with a request for consent to its ratification 29 April.

January 1, 2008. The Chamber of Deputies agreed with the ratification of the

The Treaty of Lisbon on 18 July 2005. February 6, 2009, the Senate. in May 2009. From this

the day was a group of MPs and Senators can be (and President of the Republic

from the time when he was presented to the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon)

entitled to propose the Constitutional Court the assessment of the conformity of the Lisbon

the Treaty with constitutional order. Projector-a group of Senators-your

the proposal made to 29 April. September 2009, IE. After more than one and

the half-year from the date of the Treaty of Lisbon after the senators and almost

five months after the formation of the active procedural legitimation of this group. Such

time-moving in



the order of months, and not weeks only

-no doubt



It is not reasonable

and the proposal on initiating this proceeding, therefore,



was filed without undue delay

. However, the constitutional court proceedings for this reason for

This time he couldn't refuse, since the applicant does not want to impose retroactively charged to

the interpretation of procedural rules governing access to the Constitutional Court and the

the deadline, which the Constitutional Court has found in this decision.



122. The Constitutional Court considers it appropriate to further emphasize that the management of the

According to the international treaty with constitutional order is what the method

the review and the procedural mode of the analogue of the revocation of the law or

other legislation for a contradiction (inconsistency) with the constitutional order,

or with the law. Here, therefore, applies a similar procedural rules. In

This control applies the principle of officials, as was described above [see

section 117 of this finding and find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 7/03 of 18 June. 8.2004 (N

113/34 165 SbNU, p. 185-186; 512/2004 Sb.)]. The Constitutional Court is obliged to

the proposal to discuss and complete it without regard to the other proposals.

The applicant after submission of the proposal on the opening of the proceedings no longer a proposal on

does not have. The withdrawal of the proposal on initiating the procedure for this reason is not

as well as in proceedings for annulment of the laws can be, without affecting the already once

duly initiated the proceedings remain any perceived or actual changes in

a group of senators, the demise of the mandate one or change opinion or additional

the announced aid and "connections". Fundamentally prohibited them from

for this reason, even change the design, whether in the form of an extension or a narrowing of the

design of claim (small print). The extension was necessary to qualify the

as another new proposal, which must comply with all the terms and

the conditions of the procedure as a separate proposal. In part, when the new proposal to

initiation coincides with the original proposal, which was already running, management should

was appropriate to the procedure referred to in paragraph 35. 2 of the law on the Constitutional Court, i.e..

the rejection of this part for inadmissibility due to obstacle

lis pendens that rejected the claimant then has the right to participate in the

before the proceedings as intervener.



123. the addition to the proposal that a group of Senators has submitted subsequently, after

the expiry of a further two weeks, and also the second replenishment, submitted by the

even up to the oral proceedings before the Constitutional Court, are its content

the extension proposal, since the petitioner seeks other

the provisions of the international treaty (not just divorced, deepening

the argument, which may occur during the entire proceedings, including

the final talk). The Constitutional Court, however, in the present case, the addition to the proposal

process accepted for similar reasons, which has already accepted the original

the proposal, although it was filed long after the expiry of the deadline for its submission. For

This situation would be a partial rejection of this supplement (in the range of the original

the proposal) for inadmissibility due to obstacle lis pendens (§ 35 paragraph.

2 of the law on the Constitutional Court) and the assessment of the new expanding small print as

a completely new design, which would eventually have to be-for the content

link-associated with the original proceedings lacked procedural economy.

In the future, however, such replenishment necessarily followed the conclusion of its

lagged and the rejection of such a proposal would be Constitutional, the Court went

without further.



124. In that context, the Constitutional Court emphasises that a recurring representation

the petitioner about the time constraints, in which a proposal has been prepared to
justify a double complement, it is not possible to accept the proposal. As already

The Constitutional Court has stated above, the Lisbon Treaty was the Chamber of Deputies and

The Senate submitted with the application for consent to its ratification 29 April. January

2008. As is apparent from the observations of the representatives of the two chambers of the Parliament (paragraphs 37 and

38 this award), the question of a possible violation of the Lisbon Treaty with the constitutional

policy on these negotiations were intensively discussed and in chambers

the case of the Senate even resulted in the submission of the proposal on the revision of this Treaty

The Constitutional Court (379. resolution of the Senate of the 13 meeting 24 April 2008;

The Constitutional Court finding pl. ÚS 19/08 26 February. November 2008).

The Constitutional Court considers it self-evident that the senators, who later submitted a

as a group, the proposal, in accordance with its constitutional obligations

started to consider possible reasons for inconsistent with constitutional Treaty of Lisbon

policy (supported by the relevant constitutional argument, which would

in proceedings before the Constitutional Court) until the moment with

the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the Senate gave its consent, but long before the

Thus, from the time when the contract was submitted to the Senate. Otherwise, the

the Treaty could not competently lead the debate and vote later. In this

the context of the Constitutional Court notes that in the proceedings before him

underway, however touch on political issues, it is necessary to apply the

ústavněprávně the relevant arguments, and not mere impressions, how

the applicant for example. is the evaluation of the previous finding, pl. ÚS 19/08 and

the standard of review that applied the Constitutional Court (see point 32

This award). For the totally unacceptable and on the verge of grossly offensive

the filing within the meaning of section, paragraph 61. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court, it is necessary to mark the

not unfounded "impression" of the petitioner, that is "already decided in advance"

(ibid).



In the.



Your own review



And the.



The ban on retroactive



125. The appellants argue that the Lisbon Treaty as a whole in breach of

with the article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution, namely the principle of prohibition of retroactive

(whose own understandings of the appellants in point 18 of the proposal),

as the bodies of the European Union, responsible for publishing the official journal of the

The EU will be able to perform even retrospectively and approval during the Lisbon

contract amendments in order to correct errors in it or in the existing

the contracts will be found (closer to this allegation because paragraph 6 of this

the award).



126. In the first place, the Constitutional Court notes that only the texts of the Lisbon

the Treaty, which, after its eventual entry into force binding on

the territory of the Czech Republic, will be posted in accordance with the article. 10 in conjunction

with the article. 52 paragraph. 2 of the Constitution and Act No. 309/1999 Coll., on the collection of laws and

The collection of international treaties, in the collection of international treaties, not

The official journal of the EU. This also corresponds to the fact that the Lisbon

consolidated version of the Treaty, of the TEU and the TFEU, were published in the C series of the

The official journal of the EU, where they are published only for information and the notification,

not binding legislation (cf.. Bobek, m.: the absence of a proper

the publication of Community legislation in the languages of the new Member States,

The Court of the locality. 2006, c. 12, s. 449-462, s. 450).



127. Any changes made in the text of the Lisbon Treaty published

in the official journal of the EU cannot immediately (without more) touch

the text, published in the collection of international treaties. If, in the text of the

The Lisbon Treaty at a time when this already or will be effective, the

actually made the language editing, to their effectiveness on the territory of the Czech

the Republic would be required of their publications in the collection of international treaties.

Such changes are also made in the form of a Protocol, which must

all the signatory States agree, and is governed by the procedure for anticipated article.

79 of the Vienna Convention. So, in fact, happened several times in the case of

language of adjustments to the text of the Treaty of accession-cf.

for example. communication from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs No. 64/2009 Sb. m. s.

Question time the effects of such changes would, where appropriate, the Constitutional Court had to

judge in relation to the nature of the adjustments made, and having regard to the nature of the

mailing standards, which would modify the wording of the relevant provisions of the

the contract concerned.



128. Similarly, cannot see a contradiction with the principle of the prohibition of retroactive

(if the international treaty, which is not binding, even on such

contrary to speak at all), if the linguistic editing occurs even in the

during the approval of contracts. In this case, on the proposed

adjustments to the signatory States have been informed and must agree with them. Is

the duty of the Government to inform Parliament about these changes. The appellants

Nowhere do not specify that the changes, which Parliament has not been informed,

actually occurred.



129. The Lisbon Treaty as a whole is therefore not in breach of the prohibition

retroactive.



(B).



The formal requirements for the provisions of the treaties



130. The Lisbon Treaty as a whole to be plaintiffs in breach of

with the article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution, that "does not meet the requirements of the

sufficient clarity and rationality of legislation ".

The plaintiffs argue the absence of particular "authentic consolidated

the text of "the TEU and TFEU of the Lisbon Treaty during the approval of the Parliament and the

also highlight the extent of the changes that this agreement establishes (closer to the

This allegation because paragraph 6 of this award). Reservations concerning contradicting

with the requirements of "sufficient clarity and rationality of legal

prescription ", based on the article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution, the promoters will hover and

regarding the article. 7, 8, article. 17 paragraph. 1 and 3, and article. 21. 2 (a). (h)) of the TEU and

also the article. paragraph 78. 3 TFEU (closer to these hardened reasons, points 11, 12,

14, 16 and 19 of this award).



131. In paragraphs 14 to 26 of its proposal, the promoters of his předestírají

understanding of the principles of the rule of law, contained in the article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution of the

which derive the inconsistency of the Lisbon Treaty as a whole, as well as the amount of

one of those provisions with article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution. While i refer to

find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 77/06 of 15 July. 2.2007 (N 30/44 SbNU 349;

37/2007 Coll.), in which the Constitutional Court Annuls certain provisions of the Act

No 443/2006 Coll., as it was illegal the so-called. the legislative

poor (rider), IE. amendments with legislative

the master are not related (just the content of the discontinuity of the amendment

and a legislative master was the reason for the grant of the contested provisions

Law No 443/2006 Coll.).



132. That finding cannot, however, without further deduced the requirement that

Parliament had its approval during the international treaty

"genuine consolidation" (if it can be about something like that at all

speak in relation to the Treaty, which has not yet entered into force),

respectively. even the wording of the changes, as required by the plaintiffs in

point 69 of his proposal. In that finding, the Constitutional Court said certain

the policy, which has the legislative process from the constitutional point of view, meet the

(ESP. in recitals 36 to 48). In this respect, however, did not find that, in the framework of the

the approval by Parliament of the Lisbon Treaty have been violated. In addition, as is

from the printing house No. 407 (available at http://www. the psp.

CZ/sqw/history. sqw? o = 5 & t = 407) apparent, the Government submitted to Parliament

not only the text of the Lisbon Treaty itself, but also the consolidated text of the treaties,

that the Treaty of Lisbon amends. In this respect, the process could not be

the approval of the Treaty, the Parliament finally defects that would call into question the

the consistency of the ratification of the Treaty with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic. In addition,

as reported by the Government in its observations, point 12 (cf. section 44 of this award),

"the absence of an official consolidated version of the founding treaties,

zapracovanými changes under the Lisbon Treaty, the conclusion of plaintiffs

does not support, but on the contrary seems completely logical, since the subject of the

ratification in the Member States, the Lisbon Treaty is just changing

the memorandum ". The Constitutional Court with the Government concurs in the conclusion that

"If the official consolidated text existed, by contrast,

uncertainty in the sense of what has to be the subject of ratification in all

the Member States, and which of the two texts has precedence in the (hypothetical)

the case of their violation. ".



133. Also cannot be inferred from this finding, a request for a "reasonable

generality and clarity "of the legislation, as it formulates

the appellants in relation to the questioned provisions of the Lisbon

of the Treaty. Zpochybňovaná the provisions of the TEU are part of the contracts, which make up the

the very foundations of the European Union. express its values and objectives. From

the nature of the things thus are expressed at a higher level of generality-analogy

as for example. the provisions of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, which give

specific content in specific situations to the authorities, on the application of the law

which also respond the specific interpretative procedures and methods (cf..

for example. Holländer, P. Constitutional argument. Prague, Linde, 2003, s.

24-61). In this context, it should be pointed out that the subject of the

the review is the international treaty, which cannot be fully applied

the requirements, which, in accordance with the constitutional principles puts the Constitutional Court on the

the national legislation. For international treaties, however, is

symptomatic of a substantially greater level of generality, deklarativnosti and
uncertainty, as the Constitutional Court had already stated in paragraph 186 of its award

PL. ÚS 19/08. The Constitutional Court therefore did not find that would zpochybňovaná

provisions infringe the provisions of the constitutional order, which

the plaintiffs allege.



(C).



Democracy in the European Union



134. On the question of "democratic deficit" of the decision-making process in the framework of the

The European Union, his conflict with the principles of a democratic State and Division

power, which promoters are looking for in the article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution, and its possible

delete the way of anchoring "the bound of the mandate" (closer to this

point 7 of this allegation because the award) should be noted in the first place,

that the Lisbon Treaty does not prevent Member States from any of these institutes to

national level, edit, which demonstrates the practice of individual

Member States in the matters of Government control of the negotiations within the European Union

by national legislatures (cf. for example.

Kiiver, P. The National Parliaments in the European Union: A Critical

View on EU Constitution-Building. Kluwer Law International, The Hague,

2006). Similarly, as the Constitutional Court the constitutionality of the ratification of the nepodmínil

The adoption of the Treaty of Lisbon, the national procedures for decision

where appropriate, adopted on the basis of the article. paragraph 48. 6 and 7 of the TEU (although explicitly

formulated its reservations regarding their absence) cannot be the reason

violation of the Lisbon Treaty with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic

the absence of control mechanisms, which the Lisbon Treaty itself did not

It does not limit.



135. At the same time the Constitutional Court does not condone the tendency of the position of the parliaments

Member States in the decision-making process at European Union level

strengthening, which is, after all, the Treaty of Lisbon an example (cf. for example.

the explanatory memorandum to the draft law adopted as Act No. 162/2009 Sb.

amending Law No. 90/1995 Coll., on rules of procedure of the

the Chamber of Deputies, in the wording of later regulations, and Act No. 106/1999 Coll., on the

the Senate's rules of procedure, as amended, no printing house.

742, available at http://www.psp.cz/sqw/historie.sqw?o=5&t=742 and also

his own find pl. ÚS 19/08, point 153 and 173-175).



136. Finally, the Constitutional Court adds that it is precisely the essence of the transfer

the powers of the authorities of the Czech Republic that, instead of the Parliament (but also

other authorities of the Czech Republic) shall exercise such powers, the international

the Organization to which these powers have been transferred. Compliance

such a transfer with the constitutional order, the Constitutional Court had defined comprehensively in

recitals 88 to 120 of its award pl. ÚS 19/08, which also did not find that the

These conditions were in the case of breach of the Treaty of Lisbon. At the same time

several places of this finding, he stressed that it is in an extreme case

ready to intervene in breach of these terms (see, in particular, points

120, 139, 196 and 197 of the award).



137. With the above subject against the Lisbon Treaty can be combined

the plaintiffs ' argument regarding the violation of the article. 10, paragraph 1. 1 TEU with the article. 1

paragraph. 1 and article. 10A of the Constitution (see paragraph 13 of this award). If this

the provisions of the TEU lays down that the functioning of the Union "is based on a representative

democracy "does not think that should populate this principle

ensure the exclusively processes at European level. That provision goes

both processes at European and at national level, not only

the European Parliament, as reported by the German Federal Constitutional Court in point

280 his decision cited above, to which the plaintiffs allege

in paragraph 112 of its proposal (though themselves refer to section 271 of the said

the decision).



138. In a similar sense, recently expressed even by the Advocate General of the Court of

Justice of the European communities in its opinion Miguel Poiares Maduro of the day

March 26, 2009 in Commission v Parliament and Council, C-411/06, yet

published in the ECR. No. 5:



"Democracy [...] It has, in particular in the community, several forms. At the level of

The community has a democratic legitimacy of mainly two sources: either it is

locked within the Council, which is based on the peoples of Europe through the position of the

adopted by their respective Governments, under the control of national parliaments,

or is secured by Parliament, which is the European institution with direct

representation, and the Commission, which is directly responsible to that body. Direct

the democratic team is undeniably relevant to the scale of the European

democracy, but not a single one. European democracy also includes

in particular, the sensitive balance between the national and European dimension

democracy without a necessarily prevailed over the other. Therefore,

Parliament does not have the same powers in the legislative process as the national

parliaments, and although it would be possible to defend its jurisdiction, is

left to the European Nations to decide themselves through the revision of the treaties.

Over time, has developed a balance between the powers assigned to Parliament and to the

other institutions, that is according to the will of European Nations expressed various

the normative procedures and reflects a balance between the national and European

the means of justifying the exercise of power at the European level. ".



139. In other words, democratic processes at Union and national level

complement each other and makes. Indeed, the appellants are wrong

He argues that "representative democracy can only exist within States,

within sovereign entities ". The principle of representative democracy

one of the basic principles of organization of larger entities as a transnational

type, so organizations of non-State. The existence of elements of representative

democracy at Union level does not preclude the implementation of these same elements

predicted the constitutional order of the Czech Republic, nor does not mean

crossing the border, the transfer of powers article. 10A of the Constitution.



140. For similar reasons cannot be seen as a contradiction to article. 14 paragraph. 2 of the TEU, which

Adjusts the number of members of the European Parliament, to the principle of equality

laid down in article 4(1). 1 of the Charter, as claimed by the applicant (this allegation

because the point of this finding 85). As pointed out above, the European

Parliament is not the exclusive source of democratic legitimacy of the decision

taken at European Union level. This derives from a combination of structures

existing both at national and European level, and cannot be

to insist on the requirement of absolute equality between voters in different

the Member States. This would be only in the case if the decision in the

The European Union was taken with the exclusion of legitimačních links to Government

and above all, then legislatures in each of the Member States. How

However, the Constitutional Court pointed out above in this section of the award, the opposite is

the truth.



(D).



"Political neutrality"



141. The plaintiffs point to the article. 3 TEU, which defines the objectives of the European

Union, and claims that are contrary to "the principle of political neutrality", which

the promoters are looking for in the article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution and also in the article. 2 (2). 1

Charter (closer to this allegation because of point 8 of this award). Although

with these standards, the constitutional order the plaintiffs allege as reason

breach of the TEU as a whole with the constitutional order, from their own

argument, it is evident that dispute only the article 3 of the TEU,

not of the TEU as a whole. Similar arguments, the appellants shall be submitted in

relation to the article. 17 paragraph. 3 TEU (laying down the requirements for the members of the Commission

their "Europeanism"; closer to this argument. point 14 of this

the award) and in relation to the article. 21. 2 (a). (h)) of the TEU (as the target

European Union policy in the field of international relations provides support

the international system based on stronger multilateral cooperation and

on good governance at the global level; closer to this

the argument point 16 of this award).



142. With such understanding of the provisions, however, appointed Constitutional Court

does not identify. Prohibition binding on State ideology or religion does not mean

value and the ideological poverty of the Constitution and the constitutional order,

where appropriate, the standards that are applied on the basis of-such as

the legal order of the European Union. The Constitutional Court had already stated in the very

the early days of his business, that "the Constitution is not based on value

neutrality is not only a definition of institutions and processes, but accommodates

in his text, and certain regulatory ideas, expressing the basic

the inviolable value of democratic society "[find SP. zn. Pl. ÚS

19/93 of 21 December. 12.1993 (N 1/1 SbNU 1, 5; 14/1994 Coll.)]. Therefore, if

article. 3 of the TEU defines the regulatory ideas expressed through the aims

The European Union, the Constitutional Court does not find it on anything that would be contrary to the

the constitutional order of the Czech Republic.



143. Similarly, the Constitutional Court does not find it a contradiction between the value of the content

the orientation of the constitutional order and the values which are expressed as a aims

The EU. In this sense, it refers to its previous finding pl. ÚS 19/08, points

208 and 209, where the Constitutional Court found substantial consistency between the values

expressed in the article. 2 of the TEU and the values on which is built the

material focus of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic.



144. Finally, the Constitutional Court notes the importance of the explicit formulation of the objectives of the

The Union for the definition of delegated powers, in particular in relation to the provisions of the

article. 352 TFEU. And here refers to its previous finding in the matter of the Lisbon

of the Treaty, paragraph 149. In this section of its award show, the objectives of the

as defined in the relevant provisions of the TEU and the TFEU is used to check
the exercise of delegated powers by the EU institutions, not as an expression of a certain

the ideological doctrines (which you cannot see in them anyway).



(E).



The sovereignty of the Czech Republic and State power



145. the Applicants also consider that the TEU as a whole, of the TFEU

as a whole, are in breach of article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution, specifically, the

characteristics of the Czech Republic as a sovereign State. The reason, according to

plaintiffs ' claim is that these contracts be permitted as a sub-objective of the European

the creation of a common European defence integration, with its own defense is

jurisdiction, which must always remain a sovereign State, has a

remain sovereign. Another reason the claimant is also předestřeným it,

that these contracts as the ultimate goal of European integration do not preclude the emergence of

common European federal State (the closer to this allegation

because the point 9 of this award). The appellants argue that the same is in

contrary to the provisions of the article. 1 (1). 1 and also the article. 10A of the Constitution the provisions of

article. paragraph 42. 2 of the TEU (closer to this allegation because paragraph 17 of this

the award) and also article. paragraph 78. 3 and paragraph 79. 1, TFEU, where proponents

claims that these provisions "of the composition and the number of refugees

on its territory is no longer always to decide only the Czech Republic. The European

the Union gets the power to participate in the decisions, which can quite

an important way to influence the composition of the population of the Czech Republic and its

cultural and social character "(paragraph 148 of the draft; closer to this

allegation of reason, paragraphs 19 and 20 of the award). Finally, in relation to the article. 83 TFEU,

which regulates the measures to be taken at Union level in the field of judicial

cooperation in criminal matters, the applicant considers that the "decision-making

on what is a criminal offence and what penalties for criminal offences to be

stored, among the powers of the authorities of the State, which cannot be

transferred in accordance with article 10 of the Constitution "(point 11 of the tween, reference is made to point

54 of the draft or item 6 addition); "the text from [zpochybňovaného the provisions of]

It is obvious that the European Union is to get your own criminal

powers ", which has" in itself "to contradict the provisions of the appointed

The Constitution (section 13 supplement). Finally, it states that "this power does not

clear contours, together with the European Parliament, the Council, may your area

the criminal jurisdiction of further spread. And the transfer of powers within the meaning of [article.

83 TFEU] therefore is not bounded, recognizable and specific enough "(point

14 Tween; to this allegation because paragraph 30 of this award).



146. In the first instance, the Constitutional Court refers to the conclusions expressed in its

the previous discovery pl. ÚS 19/08 regarding the nature of the European Union,

the conditions of preservation of the foundations of the sovereignty of the Czech Republic and also

the checks, which over the development of European integration, the Member States

maintain.



147. recalls that (as in point 209 of the award pl. ÚS 19/08 stated)

the sovereignty of the State is not in a modern democratic legal state the purpose

in itself, therefore, in isolation, but rather is a means to the fulfilment of

the fundamental values on which the construction of the democratic rule of law

stands. In point 107 then deduced (with reference to the considerations expressed in paragraphs 98

up to 107 of the same award), the migration of certain competences of the State that

It springs from the free will of the sovereign, and will continue to be exercised in its

participation in advance agreed, in a controlled way, there is no conceptual

the weakening of sovereignty, but on the contrary, in its consequences may refer to

its strengthening in the common process of an integrated whole. The Constitutional Court

also stated in point 104 of the finding, that the European Union has progressed

by far the most in the concept of shared-"slité"-sovereignty and already today

creates an entity sui generis, which is difficult to withstand the inclusion into the classic

státovědných categories. The key expression of the sovereignty of the State is

the possibility of his sovereignty (its part), respectively.

competence to cede temporarily or permanently.



148. If the President of the Republic with the following definition of sovereignty dispute

the statement that "the concept of shared sovereignty, although the last time

quite often used, but only in the nerigorózních debates ", and

This concept, in the opinion of the President of the Republic, "itself a contradiction in terms,"

because, as the President of the Republic believes, "not only that our rule of law

the concept of shared sovereignty «knows», but does not know him nor the law of the European

the Union "(see paragraph 61 of this award), the Constitutional Court considers appropriate in the

the context of the text annexed to the memorandum recalled the request of the Czech

Republic of acceptance into the European Union (available on http://www. Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

CZ/jnp/cz/zahranicni_vztahy/neverejne/205891-memorandum. HTML):



"The Czech nation only recently regained full national sovereignty again.

The Government of the Czech Republic, however, irrevocably came to the same conclusion, which

in the past governments have reached today's Member States that, in the modern

European Development (j)



(e) the exchange of their own State sovereignty for shared sovereignty of the share

supranational and co-responsibility for the benefit of its own indispensable

the country and the whole of Europe

“.



149. The resolution of the Government of the Czech Republic of 13 October. December 1995 No. 732 k

the Czech Republic's application for admission to the European Union meanwhile instructed

the then Prime Minister (and today's President of the Republic), Václav

Klaus, to request and memorandum (which, in accordance with the resolution of the Government of

an integral part of the application) in January 1996, the Government of the Italian Republic

as the Presidency State of the European Union for 1. half of 1996. It is therefore

no doubt, that the President of the Republic, but also other policy makers

responsible for the adoption of the memorandum, the concept had to be shared

the sovereignty of the well known already at the time when the Czech Republic has not yet been

a member of the European Union. This fact has proven himself a legal representative

President of the Republic, that of MOU on hearing extensively

quoted in support of the claim that the nature of the European Union has

The Lisbon Treaty fundamentally transform.



150. The Constitutional Court also in the point of finding 120 Pl. TC 19/08 stated that



-generally recognises the functionality of the institutional framework of the EU to ensure

control the scope of the exercise of delegated powers; his opinion, however,

may change in the future, if it turned out that this framework

proven to be broken;



-in terms of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic-and in particular the

with regard to the material Constitution of the outbreak-is significant not merely

custom text and the content of the Lisbon Treaty, but also its future specific

the application;



and, finally, that



-and the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic will (May)-even taking into account the

the previous policy-to act as an ultima ratio and may examine whether the

any act of the institutions of the Union nevybočil from the powers which the Czech Republic

According to the article. 10A of the Constitution to the European Union. The Constitutional Court, however,

It assumes that such a situation may occur only in the cases completely

exceptional; for those, it would be possible to consider in particular the abandonment of the value

identity and has already exceeded the scope of delegated competences listed.



151. Over this framework to specific arguments listed

the following shall be added by the applicant.



152. the plaintiffs ' Argument about the unconstitutionality of the partial objectives of the European

the Union called the "common European defense", according to which only "custom

the defense is the power to which a sovereign State must be preserved ", is

totally does not arise. Creating the Interstate system of collective defence

not in any way undermine the sovereignty of States on these systems

involved in. The idea of the plaintiffs about the loss of sovereignty of the Czech Republic

as a result of a contractual commitment to a common defence would then be filled with

already on 12 March 2005. in March 1999, when the Czech Republic acceded to the

The North Atlantic Alliance (NATO), which is the article. 5 Washington

the Treaty (published under the No 66/1999 Coll.): "the Contracting Parties agree that the

an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North

America will be considered an attack against all, and therefore agreed that the

If such an armed attack, each of them the right to apply

individual or collective defence, recognized by the article. 51 of the Charter of the United

Nations, will help the Contracting Party or parties as follows in the contested by

immediately take itself and in accordance with the other parties, such action

What will be considered as necessary, including the use of armed forces, with the aim of

to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. "



153. As well as the alleged unconstitutionality of the changes made to the Lisbon

the Treaty in the TEU and TFEU "as a whole", according to the claim

the plaintiffs in that the Treaty "shall not preclude as ultimate goal the creation of

the joint federal State "does not hold water. Both contracts contain enumeration

common goals exclusively in a positive position, which in itself cannot

constitute a contradiction with the Czech constitutional order. In another Constitutional Court

reference is made to paragraph 132 of the award pl. ÚS 19/08. At this point, the Constitutional Court

considers it important to specify that in this point didn't oblige your

review of the TEU and the TFEU itself (which could make-see paragraph 108 of this

the award), but the way in which the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty-

in this respect, it is also necessary to apply to the statement executed by the review here and

This finding, as related to the review of the Lisbon Treaty

as a whole (and not of the TEU and the TFEU as a whole).
154. the applicant also disputes the article. paragraph 78. 3 and article. paragraph 79. 1 of the TFEU,

concerning policies on border controls, immigration and asylum.

This part of the Treaty as interpreted "



the legal basis for future decisions of the organs of the Union, that country shall take the

how much and what kind of refugees from third countries

“. The Constitutional Court in accordance with the observations of the Government (points 62 to 65)

points out that it is basically about the acceptance of article 64

paragraph. 2 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, and

caused by the Treaty of Lisbon lies in strengthening the participation of the European

Parliament on EU decisions. The provisions of the article. paragraph 79. 5 TFEU

Member States, moreover, explicitly guarantees the right to determine volumes of admission

third-country nationals entering their territory with the

the aim of the search work or run a business, on the contrary, the Treaty leaves so challenged

the regulatory mechanism of the movement of persons from third countries in the competence of the Member

States. The contested provisions therefore represent a special form of the common

Regulation by way of temporary measures in the event of a sudden influx of persons

applying for asylum. A refinement of this mechanism, the Constitutional Court shall be considered as

predominantly political question, which is primarily the Affairs of the Government, which the Treaty

ujednala, and the Chambers of the Parliament, which, with its ratification was made

the consent. The Constitutional Court considers such an arrangement to be admissible in the context of the article.

10A of the Constitution and prior to the constitutional order (see also point in this sense

111 this finding).



155. Finally, to the navrhovatelově reservation concerning the alleged violation of article.

with article 83 TFEU. 1 (1). 1 and article. 10A the Constitution recalls the conclusions of the Constitutional Court

expressed in its award sp.. PL. ÚS 66/04 of 3 March. 5.2006 (N 93/41

SbNU 195; 434/2006 Coll.), paragraphs 70 and 71. According to them, cannot be ignored, that the

the current period is associated with extremely high mobility of people,

increasing international cooperation and increasing confidence between

the democratic States of the European Union. The citizens of the Member States have, in addition to

civil rights of their States, also the rights of citizens of the Union, which among other things.

ensure free movement within the Union. Investigation and suppression

the crime that occurs in the European area, it is not possible

successfully implement within an individual Member State, but requires

broad international cooperation. The current standard of protection of fundamental

rights within the European Union does, according to the Constitutional Court any causes

to believe that this standard of protection of fundamental rights, through

the application of the principles arising from them, has a lower quality than the protection of the

provided in the Czech Republic. Powers delegated article. 83 TFEU on Union

in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters are a reflection of this

the development.



156. It cannot be ignored that the article. paragraph 83. 1, TFEU allows this action

accept only if the crime, that the measures taken

concern, has a cross-border dimension and at the same time that her nature, the impact of or

the need to combat it on a common basis. The following

subparagraph, even criminal activity such as explicitly

defines the (terrorism, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and

children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money

money, corruption, counterfeiting of means of payment, vehicle crime

computing and organised crime). This is not a

about blanketní standard, which would give the Union a general competence in the

the field of criminal law, but about the power, whose implementation at the level of

The European Union is, in accordance with the conclusions of the vyslovenými in the previous point

This finding, in the interest of the Czech Republic and its citizens.



157. Similarly, the measures taken on the basis of the second paragraph of article. 83 TFEU

must be "necessary to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in the

the area, which has been subject to harmonisation measures, "and limited

so in areas where individual States must proceed from the nature of things

together, in order to ensure the effective enforcement of the adopted jointly by the

the rules.



158. This provision is also to be seen in the context of the case law of the

The Court of Justice of the European communities. The Court of Justice in the judgment of

October 23, 2007, Commission v Council ("marine pollution"), C-440/05, ECR.

I-9097 [in which clarify the conclusions formulated by the Court of Justice in its judgment in

of 13 June. September 2005, Commission v Council, ("criminal law of the

environment "), C-176/03, ECR. I-7879] stated that "while it is

true that the criminal law or criminal procedural law principle

are not within the competence of the community [...], but this does not alter the fact that

the Community legislature may, in the event that the use of efficient,

proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties by the competent national

authorities represents the necessary measures for the fight against the serious interference in the

the environment, also save the Member States to introduce

such penalties in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the standards adopted in this

the area ". Article. paragraph 83. 2 this case-law modifies the meaning

It provides a specific legal basis (lex specialis) for communion

measures in the area of criminal law and the implications of the judgments cited by the narrows.

If the Lisbon Treaty enters into force, it will not be possible to

case law continues to be used as a basis for the application of the provisions of the treaties,

which allow you to adopt harmonisation measures for the adoption of measures in the

the field of criminal law [to this conclusion grows up such as the House of report

Lords, European Union Committee, 10th Report of Session 2007-08, "The

Treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment "in section 6.188]. It is important to

especially with regard to the policy the revised in article. paragraph 83. 3 TFEU. In

this direction, therefore, represents the plaintiff contested provisions of the TFEU

rather a step towards stronger protection of constitutional principles, which relied on,

than their violation.



159. With these reservations can be combined and the appellant's claim for breach of

article. with the provisions of article 7 of the TEU. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution (this allegation of reason

points 11 and 81 of this award). The claimant States that "If the

suspended members, with projected consequences even for the

private persons, then the Czech State power in fact its citizens will not be able to

to serve, because they will be temporarily deprived of certain rights, without which the

the service requires citizens "(paragraph 105 of the draft). In this respect, the Constitutional Court

recalls the conclusions expressed in finding pl. ÚS 19/08. In point 209

He stated that the violation of the fundamental values of the European Union, to which article.

7 of the TEU is heading, "would have to simultaneously mean violation of those values, the

which is itself materially understood the constitutionality of the Czech Republic;

This would initially own the Constitutional Court, as well as the national General courts in the

the limits of its jurisdiction, had to provide the maximum protection possible. ".

The exercise of State power that would violate these values hardly may

to serve the citizens. Article. 7 is so should be seen as a mechanism

protection principles, on which stands the constitutionality of the Czech Republic, and not

as a means of their violation.



160. It is also possible in this part of the award to respond to claims

the petitioner for violation of the article. with article 9 TEU. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution (to this

because of this allegation of point 83 of the award), since it primarily refers to the

alleged conflict between the Institute of citizenship of the European Union and the principle of

sovereignty contained in the article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution. Here, the Constitutional Court

Noting that the Institute of citizenship of the European Union was introduced already

The Maastricht Treaty in 1993 (when the Treaty entered into

the efficiency), and not only now the Treaty of Lisbon,

privilege of the citizens of the Member States, that the Court of Justice of the European

Community deduced from existing provisions of Community law,

Adds European Union citizenship, only the minimum of the new normative content

(cf. in particular. Weiler, J. H. H. The Constitution of Europe. "In the

the new clothes have an emperor? "and other essays on the European

integration. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 324-355).

Citizenship of the European Union not to deny the citizenship of a Member State,

on the contrary, is providing the European dimension (cf. find pl. ÚS 66/04, point

70). in addition, the Constitutional Court has already in its discovery pl. ÚS 66/04, point 71

He said that if the Czech citizens are beneficiaries of benefits associated with

Statute of the citizenship of the European Union, in this context, it is natural that with

These benefits it is necessary to accept a degree of responsibility also. In

this respect, therefore, the Constitutional Court of the contradiction between article. 9 of the TEU and article. 1 (1). 1

The Constitution did not.



161. Finally, it is necessary to reject the applicant's claim for violation of the article. 13

paragraph. 1 TEU and article. with article 47 TEU. 10A of the Constitution (this allegation of reason

point 84 of this award) and with regard to the reasons set out in section 147

This award.



(F).



The requirement of "Europeanism" members of the Commission



162. in addition to the objections raised by the applicant against the line of article. 17 paragraph. 3

SEU, prescribes that the members of the Commission are chosen "according to the total

competence and European commitment from persons who offer every guarantee

of independence ", which the Constitutional Court dealt with above in sections (B) and (D) of this

part of the award, the plaintiffs also argue that this provision contradicts the

article. 1 (1). 1 of the Charter (sic!), in which people's equal in the
rights, and article. 21. 4 of the Charter, according to which citizens have for equal

the conditions of access to elected and other public functions. According to the plaintiffs '

is unconstitutional in terms of the inequality of the determination of a sufficient

European citizenship (closer to this allegation because of paragraphs 14 and 86 of this

the award).



163. the determination of whether the requirement of "Europeanism", discussing article. 17 paragraph. 3 of the TEU on the

members of the Commission, establishing an unconstitutional inequality necessarily relies on the value and

political judgement about whether it is the relevant distinguishing

criterion (cf. for example. Bobek, m., Boučková, p. Kühn from. Equality and

discrimination. Prague, c. h. Beck, 2007, with 12 to 14). As recently stated

The Constitutional Court in its finding SP. zn. II.-1609/08 dated May 30. 4.2009

(available at http://nalus.usoud.cz), "in the law is [...] quite common, that

a distinction is made between the different bodies of the rights, and therefore not every resolution is

automatically discrimination in the meaning of what this concept attaches

the current law. If the [...] of the constitutional principle of equality cannot be understood

absolutely as an abstract category, but as a relative equality, then

discrimination cannot be any difference in the rights and obligations of

the different bodies of law, but only the differences. “. The Constitutional Court

so must assess whether the request is appointed.



164. In that respect, it must be based on both of the objectives that the European Union's

places, and from the fact that these objectives from the constitutional point of view fully in accordance

the value orientation of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic (see section (D)

This part of the award). Member of the Commission, as an institution, which, under article.

17 paragraph. 1 mj. to promote the general interest of the European Union, must be the interests of the

The Union and its objectives also committed to match the wording-the investigation

the request contained in the other language versions of the Treaty of Lisbon,

for example. as a requirement of "európskej engagement" in Slovak version,

"The European commitment" in the English version, "engagement" in the version of the européen

the French, "Einsatzes für Europa" in the German version or the

"zaangażowanie w sprawy europejskie" in the Polish version (in the same sense

and the Government argues in point 39 of his comments-cf. section 49 of this

the award). In this respect, it is therefore appointed a request legitimate and fully

compatible with the requirement laid down by the above-mentioned provisions of equality,

the Czech constitutional order.



(G).



Enhanced cooperation



165. According to the plaintiffs ' claim is contrary to article 20 TEU article. 1 (1). 1 and article. 10A

The Constitution, that the conditions for enhanced cooperation agreement of the EU institutions

prevents the exercise of certain powers at European level and at the level of the

the Member States, and so the principle of Government is contrary to people and the principle of

the sovereignty of the Czech Republic (closer to this allegation because paragraph 15

This award).



166. The aforementioned provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon, in the opinion of the Constitutional Court

is not contrary to those provisions of the constitutional order. The possibility of cooperation

the Member countries of the Union beyond the integration already achieved in terms of

of international law, of course, entirely legitimate form of realization

the sovereignty of each State as a subject of international law. Condition

approval by the Council, has the basic meaning of subsidiarity in compliance with rules and

rozhraničení exclusive and shared competences so that they are at the same time

retained obligations arising from membership in the Union. Essential for the assessment of

This Institute, which may appear as a base for possible

"multi-speed Europe", is simultaneously embodied the principle of openness to all

the Member States (article 20, paragraph 1, TEU) and the condition of unanimity of all

members of the Council with the decision on enhanced cooperation (Article 329, paragraph 2, TFEU).

The agreement of the Czech Republic by the Institute of enhanced cooperation-

without at this stage however he-does not affect the principle of the Government

the people and the sovereignty of the Czech Republic, as it leaves for the futuro on

will their constitutional authorities, including both chambers of Parliament, whether, when, and

in what form the Czech Republic involved in enhanced cooperation, or

If on the contrary, will use its rights and a form of a different pace

integration of processes within the Union. When the appellants argue that

article. 20 TEU "bypasses and completely perverting the meaning of one of the fundamental

the principles of relations between States, namely, that what is not prohibited by the international

the law or on the basis of, for example, European law, remains

allowed to "and also that" as a result, then applied between States of the EU

the principle that States may cooperate only if the EU

allows "so completely, that without a special editing internal

integration processes in the EU, these could completely spin out of control of the

the parties of sovereign Member States.



(H).



Withdrawal of a Member State of the European Union



167. Similarly you can disprove the doubts raised by the plaintiffs regarding the article. 50

paragraph. 2 to 4 of the TEU, which governs the process of eventual speeches of the Member

State of the European Union. The plaintiffs claim that this edit "contrary

with the principle of sovereignty ", enshrined in article. 1 (1). 1 of the Constitution, and also

contradicts the "principles of legitimate expectations-retroactivity and, therefore,

the basic principle of the rule of law, that any rules must be known

the front ' (paragraph 143 of the proposal). According to the plaintiffs, the uncertainty of future

the conditions of the EU contradicts even the article. 10A of the Constitution, since, according to

the plaintiffs "transfer of powers must be, and must be

method of withdrawal of the delegated powers at national level. The withdrawal of the

the powers must not be subject to the necessary consent or de facto from EU "

(point 144 proposal; closer to this allegation because paragraph 18 of this award).



168. Sovereignty does not mean arbitrariness or the ability to freely violate

existing commitments in the form of international treaties, such as (i) of the Treaty,

on the basis of the Czech Republic is a member of the European Union. The Czech

Republic of these contracts arise not only a privilege but also the commitments to

the other Member States. It would be contrary to the principle of



pacta sunt servanda

, codified in provisions of article. 26 of the Vienna Convention, the Czech

Republic may at any time begin to ignore these obligations with

citing that it is once again taking their powers. Czech Republic would

had to in his possible withdrawal from the European Union, and even at the

the current legal status, respect the requirements for the withdrawal

from the Treaty with the other Member States, of international law. It follows from the

the provisions of the article. 1 (1). 2 of the Constitution, according to which "the Czech Republic

complies with the obligations under international law. ". Is

thus fully in accordance with this request, the Czech ústavněprávním

the Republic had in its possible withdrawal from the European Union

follow a predetermined route (the limitations arising from the rights

international and European Union law. Zbíral, r. Speeches from

The European Union in the light of European and international law. The lawyer, vol.

2008, no. 7, pp. 752-773).



169. In addition, paragraph 3 provides that zpochybňovaného provisions "of the Treaty

for the State in question cease to be applicable on the date of entry into force of the agreement on

appearances in the force, or, failing that, two years after the notification of the

[plan of the Member State to withdraw from the European Union], unless the

The European Council, acting unanimously, in agreement with the Member State concerned of

extension of this period. ". It is therefore not true that "the withdrawal of the powers"

(how the performances of the European Union is characterised by promoters)

subject to approval by the EU. On the contrary, this provision reflects the

the balance between the requirement of the sovereignty of the Czech Republic and the requirement to

compliance with the obligations to which the Czech Republic joined with other

by the Member States. Similarly, in fact, assess the contested provisions and

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia in its decision of 7 May 2002. April 2009

No 2008-35-01 (English translation of decision available on http://www.

satv. tiesa. gov. lv/upload/judg_2008_35.htm) in section 10.1.



170. The alleged contradiction of that provision with article. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution (to

This allegation because paragraph 89 of this award) then follows from a misunderstanding

the process of withdrawal of a member from the European Union. The appellant submits that the

"If, according to paragraph 2(a). 4 [article 50 TEU] the European Council or the Council

representing the withdrawing State shall not participate in the negotiations,

relating to his State, so called. » «For the Treaty of Lisbon

the said process limits the potential of the withdrawing State to serve its

citizens. And at the same time their right in this regard. This is contrary to [article 2

paragraph. 3 of the Constitution], according to which, the cit.:» State power serves all

citizens. "". The appellant completely overlooks the that in the context of these negotiations,

determination of the content of any agreement is in progress on the conditions of performance of the Member

the European Council (or the State. By the Council) as one of the Contracting Parties,

with the withdrawing Member State to become a party to the other. Is

so completely natural, it does not participate in the decisions of the other party,

the parties to the agreement which it has concluded. In addition, it has a protruding

always the option of the Member State of the agreement and not proceed in accordance

with the provisions of the article. paragraph 50. 3 TEU.



(I).



The powers of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the management of compliance international

contracts with the constitutional order



171. At the core of the alleged breach of article. 19 paragraph. 1 TEU with the article. paragraph 87. 2
The Constitution, as is apparent from the provisions of the Constitution, which

the claimant alleges, is supposed to be disabling to the Constitutional Court's

He made "independent judgment, concerning the interpretation of an international treaty in accordance with

article. 10A and article. 49, will decide on its compliance with the constitutional

policy of the CZECH REPUBLIC ". By navrhovatelova view the legal standard that contains this

the rule in the provisions of the article. 19 paragraph. 1 TEU (the appellant has in mind

the precedence of Community law) places the Court in the interpretation of the "so called.

» Contract «(meant in the Lisbon Treaty) and in cases of interpretation

the Constitutional Court of an EU Member State. And that's when his decisions on compliance

The Treaty of Lisbon in the texts of any amendments and additions to the international

the Treaty with the Constitution or the constitutional order of the Member State "(to this

This allegation because paragraph 88 of the award).



172. Such a claim, however, directly contradicts the conclusion that the Constitutional Court

said in its finding of PL. ÚS 19/08, point 94, when the need for a deduced

the use of the entire constitutional order as the terms of reference of the review

The Lisbon Treaty, and not only his material focus. The constitutional

the court first recalled that in finding pl. ÚS 66/04 did not rule out a major

the preferred application of Community law, that is, as stated, your

the border only in the material of the Constitution, which establishes the focus of find the Pl. TC

50/04. At the same time, however, the Constitutional Court has implicitly admitted the possible non-compliance

delete not only the preferred application standards of Community law,

But even the path of constitutional changes. From the perspective of the claimant applied

because of violation of the article. 19 paragraph. 1 TEU with the article. paragraph 87. 2 of the Constitution is the key

This passage: "it must be added that, however, their need to be able

ústavodárce, it is necessary to recognize, that the Constitutional Court had the option

review the provisions of European law in terms of their compliance with the

the constitutional order as a whole, not only with its material

the outbreak. Under such a review can then define those provisions

the constitutional order, which cannot be interpreted by applying the methodology home

interpretation in accordance with the requirements of European law and that it would be necessary to

Edit. Preliminary review gives him the opportunity to do so, since the

does not raise problems at the application level. The Constitutional Court thus gets

to a certain extent option to assess the constitutionality of the interpretation of the existing

the standards of EU law the Court of Justice, without him was in direct

the conflict. “.



173. In other words, the priority of the application of Community law in the case of

the review of the treaties, which are not yet effective (and therefore cannot be

and, where appropriate, be applied at the application level in contravention of the provisions of the

national law), shall not apply.



VI.



The proposal to link with the management in case of sp.. PL. ÚS 26/09



174. In section IV of the small print of the proposal the applicant asks that the Constitutional Court both

proposals to connect to the common control.



175. In the above procedure, but the Constitutional Court has already decided by resolution SP. zn.

PL. ÚS 26/09 of 6. 10.2009 (available at http://nalus.usoud.cz)

the rejection of the proposal in this matter and the proposal on the merger of the two proceedings so as

so pointless, regardless of that, from the very beginning was not

the permissible (see resolution SP. zn. PL. ÚS 26/09, paragraph 14 and 27).



VII.



The decision of the heads of State or Government, meeting within the European Council

in relation to the concerns of the Irish people on the Lisbon Treaty



176. In section IV of the small print of the proposal first to the appellants ' request that the constitutional

the Court found that the decision of the heads of State or Government

meeting within the European Council in relation to the concerns of the Irish people in respect of

with the Treaty of Lisbon, which in the days of 18. and 19. June 2009 supplement

some of the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, is the international agreement referred to in

Article 10 of the Constitution, and as such requires the consent of both chambers of Parliament

the constitutional majority, otherwise it is not in relation to the Czech Republic

applicable. ". Petit then formulated as follows at paragraphs 151 to divorce

165 design.



177. The subject of the proceedings on compliance of international agreements referred to in article. 10A and article.

49 of the Constitution can only be an international treaty, and the provisions of section 71a

the law on the Constitutional Court lays down the conditions for the initiation of the proceeding, on

his subject, the circuit also legitimised bodies and actively

the time in which they can submit your proposal. Failure to comply with any of the

These procedural conditions, the law on the Constitutional Court in § 71b paragraph.

1 is a special case of inadmissibility of the proposal on the initiation of

According to the international treaties with constitutional order. The subject of this

control is the Lisbon Treaty, not an Act adopted at the level of the European

the Union in its context. Without the Constitutional Court dealt with the nature of the

of the decision, he had concluded that the proposal is in this section

inadmissible under section 71b paragraph. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court, as

the applicant is not such a design legitimován and the Constitutional Court is not to

such a decision.



VIII.



The conclusion of the



178. The Constitutional Court with regard to the above draft decision group

Senators on the assessment of the conformity of the Lisbon Treaty amending the Treaty on the

The European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community with the constitutional

policy, in proceedings under article. paragraph 87. 2 of the Constitution, so that the



-proposal to the Constitutional Court assessed the compliance of the Treaty on European Union as

the whole and the Treaty establishing the European Community as a whole, with the

the constitutional order, the constitutional court verdict II of this award for declined

inadmissibility under section 71b paragraph. 1, in conjunction with section 43, paragraph. 1 (a). (e))

the law on the Constitutional Court (recital 108 to the point of this award),



-proposal to the Constitutional Court assessed the compliance of the article. 2, article. 4 and article. 216

The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, with the constitutional order, the Constitutional Court

Statement III of this finding as to the inadmissibility of the matter refused already finding

The Constitutional Court were under section 35, paragraph. 1, in conjunction with section 43, paragraph.

1 (a). (e)) of the law on Constitutional Court (recital 101 of this point

the award),



-proposal to the Constitutional Court stated that "the decision of the heads of State or

Government meeting within the European Council in relation to the concerns of the Irish

the people concerning the Treaty of Lisbon, which in the days of 18. and 19. June

2009 supplement certain provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, is the international

the contract referred to in article 10 of the Constitution, and as such requires the consent of both

Chambers of Parliament, the constitutional majority, otherwise it is not in relation to the Czech

Republic applicable ", the constitutional court verdict IV this finding refused

According to § 71b paragraph. 1 in conjunction with § 43, paragraph. 1 (a). (e)) of the law on

The Constitutional Court for inadmissibility (point 177 of this award),



-proposal to the Constitutional Court with this proposal to initiate proceedings on compliance of

The Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the

establishing the European Community with the constitutional order merged proposal

a group of Senators to repeal the provisions selected necessitated both

Chambers of Parliament, conducted under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 26/09, the constitutional court verdict

In this finding, refused under section 71b paragraph. 1 in conjunction with § 43, paragraph. 1

(a). (e)) of the law on Constitutional Court for inadmissibility (point of

175 this award),



-and finally, the verdict of the award pursuant to section 71e paragraph. 2 of the law on

The Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court said that the Lisbon Treaty amending

The Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community-

as a whole (of 125 points to 129 together with 130 points to 133

This award),



-in article. 7 (recital 130 to 133 points together with point 159 of this

the award),



-article. 8 (recital 130 points to 133 of this award),



-article. 9 (recital 160 to the point of this award),



-article. 10, paragraph 1. 1 (recital 137 to 139 points of this award),



-article. 13 (3). 1 (recital 161 to the point of this award),



-article. 14 paragraph. 2 (recital 140 to the point of this award),



-article. 17 paragraph. 1 and 3 (recital 130 to 133 points along with 141 points

up to 144 and 162 to 164 points this award),



-article. 19 paragraph. 1 (to justify point 171 to 173 of this award),



-article. 20 (recital 165 and 166 points of this award),



-article. 21. 2 (a). (h) to support 130 to 133 points together with points

141 to 144 of this award),



-article. paragraph 42. 2 (recital 145 to 150 points, together with point 152

This award),



-article. 47 (recital 161 to the point of this award)



-and the article. paragraph 50. 2 to 4 (recital 167 to 170 points this award)



contained in the Treaty on European Union,



-in article. 3 (recital 101 to the point of this award),



-in article. paragraph 78. 3 (recital 130 to 133 points, along with 145 points to

150 and 154 point this award),



-article. paragraph 79. 1 (recital 145 to 150 points, together with point 154

This award)



-and the article. 83 points to recital (145 to 150 along with 155 points to 158

This award)



contained in the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union



and its ratification is not in conflict with the constitutional order of the Czech Republic.



179. The Constitutional Court notes that its findings are refuted by

doubts about the accordance of the Lisbon Treaty with the Czech constitutional order and

removed formal obstacles to its ratification.



The President of the Constitutional Court:



JUDr. Rychetský in r.