Judicial Review of COVID-19 Restrictive Measures in the Czech Republic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54201/iajas.v2i2.51Keywords:
Judicial Review, COVID-19, Supreme Administrative Court, Czech Republic, restrictive measures, Constitutional CourtAbstract
The courts ought to be active players during the pandemic crisis to prevent the abuse of power, enhance the quality of the measures taken and their communication and contribute to increasing their legitimacy. The paper focuses on the Czech Constitutional Court and the Supreme Administrative Court (together with regional administrative courts) and assesses whether they lived up to this role. We found that the Constitutional Court was a passive player, which resulted from insufficient procedural legal norms and a formalistic approach by the court itself. On the other hand, the Supreme Administrative Court was – mainly due to a special procedural framework – an active player. Its case law has a real impact and prevents the executive power from making some faults, such as an obvious lack of legal basis or clearly insufficient reasoning.
References
Barber, N. (2012). The Constitutional State (Reprint edition). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199585014.001.0001
Barber, N. W. (2018). The Principles of Constitutionalism. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198808145.001.0001
Bargain, O., & Aminjonov, U. (2020). Trust and Compliance to Public Health Policies in Times of COVID-19. Journal of Public Economics, 192, 104316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104316
Berlin, I. (1969). Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford University Press.
Chvojka, Š. (2021). Role Ústavního soudu v koronakrizi. Jurisprudence, 30(2), 14–27.
CVVM (Centrum pro výzkum veřejného mínění). (2020, October 5). Tisková zpráva. Důvěra vybraným institucím – červenec 2020. Online: https://bit.ly/3hb3Fw5
CVVM (Centrum pro výzkum veřejného mínění). (2021a, August 2). Tisková zpráva. Důvěra ústavním institucím v červenci 2021. Online: https://bit.ly/3Tdg402
CVVM (Centrum pro výzkum veřejného mínění). (2021b, August 27). Tisková zpráva. Důvěra vybraným institucím – červenec 2021. Online: https://bit.ly/3t4YGjj
CVVM (Centrum pro výzkum veřejného mínění). (2021c, December 21). Tisková zpráva. Důvěra k vybraným institucím veřejného života – srpen/září 2021. Online: https://bit.ly/3t21BcG
Eichler, J., & Sonkar, S. (2021). Challenging absolute executive powers in times of corona: Re-examining constitutional courts and the collective right to public contestation as instruments of institutional control. Review of Economics and Political Science, 6(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/REPS-08-2020-0132
Fabbrini, F. (2010). The role of the judiciaries in times of emergency: Judicial review of counter-terrorism measures in the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice. Yearbook of European Law, 28(1), 664–697. https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/28.1.664
Filip, J., Holländer, P., & Šimíček, V. (2007). Zákon o Ústavním soudu: Komentář. C. H. Beck.
Government of the Czech Republic. (2022, January 7). Government Programme Statement. vlada.cz. Online: http://bit.ly/3h5a3oX
Guasti, P. (2020). The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Central and Eastern Europe: The Rise of Autocracy and Democratic Resilience. Democratic Theory, 7(2), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.3167/dt.2020.070207
Havlík, V. (2019). Technocratic Populism and Political Illiberalism in Central Europe. Problems of Post-Communism, 66(6), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2019.1580590
Horák, F., Dienstbier, J., & Derka, V. (2021). Právní úprava mimořádného vládnutí v kontextu pandemie covid-19. Rozhodnutí o vyhlášení nouzového stavu. Právník, 160(6), 431–450.
Jovičić, S. (2021). COVID-19 restrictions on human rights in the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. ERA Forum, 21(4), 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-020-00630-w
Jenkins, D. (2014). When Good Cases Go Bad: Unintended Consequences of Rights-Friendly Judgments. In F. Davis, & F. de Londras (Eds.), Critical Debates on Counter-Terrorism Judicial Review (pp. 75–96). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781107282124.005
Kovalčík, M. (2021). Role Ústavního soudu za pandemie v nouzovém stavu: Aktivní hráč, nebo pasivní přihlížející? Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi, 29(3), 649–668. https://doi.org/10.5817/CPVP2021-3-9
Maerz, S. F., Lührmann, A., Lachapelle, J., & Edgell, A. B. (2020). Worth the Sacrifice? Illiberal and Authoritarian Practices during Covid-19. V-Dem Working Paper 110. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3701720
Ondřejek, P. (2020). Proporcionalita opatření přijímaných ve výjimečných stavech. Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi, 28(4), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.5817/CPVP2020-4-4
Petrov, J. (2020). The COVID-19 Emergency in the Age of executive Aggrandizement: What Role for Legislative and Judicial Checks? The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 8(1–2), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2020.1788232
Schabas, W. (2015). The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary (First edition). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780199594061.001.0001
Shapiro, M. M. (1986). Courts: A comparative and political analysis (Paperback ed). University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226161341.001.0001
Vikarská, Z. (2020, May 20). Czechs and Balances – If the Epidemiological Situation Allows…. Verfassungsblog. Online: https://bit.ly/3UtCV8y
Vikarská, Z. (2021, March 30). Czechs and Balances – One Year Later. Verfassungsblog. Online: https://bit.ly/3Td20Un
Waldron, J. (2012). Constitutionalism: A Skeptical View. NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 10-87. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444310399.ch15
Wiley, L. F., & Vladeck, S. I. (2020). Coronavirus, Civil Liberties, and the Courts: The Case Against ‘Suspending’ Judicial Review. Harvard Law Review Forum, 133(9), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3585629
Wintr, J. (2020). K ústavnosti a zákonnosti protiepidemických opatření na jaře 2020. Správní Právo, 53(5–6).
Legal sources
Constitution of the Czech Republic.
Zákon č. 182/1993 Sb., o Ústavním soudě [Constitutional Court Act].
Ústavní zákon č. 110/1998 Sb., o bezpečnosti České republiky [Security Act].
Zákon č. 240/2000 Sb., krizový zákon [Crisis Management Act].
Zákon č. 258/2000 Sb., o ochraně veřejného zdraví [Public Health Act].
Zákona č. 150/2002 Sb., soudní řád správní [Code of Administrative Justice].
Zákon č. 94/2021 Sb., o mimořádných opatřeních při epidemii onemocnění COVID-19 [Pandemic Act].
Zákon č. 39/2022 Sb., kterým se mění zákon č. 94/2021 Sb., o mimořádných opatřeních při epidemii onemocnění COVID-19 a o změně některých souvisejících zákonů, ve znění nálezu Ústavního soudu, vyhlášeného pod č. 4/2022 Sb., a zákon č. 520/2021 Sb., o dalších úpravách poskytování ošetřovného v souvislosti s mimořádnými opatřeními při epidemii onemocnění COVID-19 [Amending Act].
Resolution of the Chamber of Deputies no. 113/2022 Coll.
ECtHR – Ireland v. United Kingdom, app. no. 5310/71.
ECtHR – Sakik and others v. Turkey, app. no. 23878-23883/94.
CC decision no. Pl. ÚS 8/20.
CC decision no. Pl. ÚS 11/20.
CC decision no. Pl. ÚS 12/20.
CC decision no. Pl. ÚS 13/20.
CC decision no. Pl. ÚS 19/20.
CC decision no. Pl. ÚS 20/20.
CC decision no. Pl. ÚS 106/20.
CC decision no. Pl. ÚS 113/20.
CC decision no. Pl. ÚS 102/20.
CC decision no. Pl. ÚS 106/20.
CC decision no. Pl. ÚS 12/21.
CC decision no. Pl. ÚS 19/21.
CC decision no. Pl. ÚS 23/21.
CC decision no. Pl. ÚS 34/21.
CC decision no. IV. ÚS 2431/21.
CC decision no. I. ÚS 3265/21.
Municipal Court in Prague judgment no. 14 A 45/2020 – 141.
Municipal Court in Prague judgment no. 18 A 59/2020 – 226.
Municipal Court in Prague judgment no. 17 A 126/2020 – 84.
Municipal Court in Prague judgment no. 6 A 141/2020 – 90.
Municipal Court in Prague judgment no. 8 A 26/2021 – 42.
U.S. Supreme Court – Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
SAC judgment no. 6 As 114/2020 – 63.
SAC judgment no. 5 As 138/2020 – 80.
SAC judgment no. 5 As 160/2020 – 66.
SAC judgment no. 9 As 264/2020 – 51.
SAC judgment no. 8 Ao 1/2021 – 133.
SAC judgment no. 3 Ao 3/2021 – 27.
SAC judgment no. 4 Ao 3/2021 – 117.
SAC judgment no. Aprn 4/2021 – 107.
SAC judgment no. 6 Ao 6/2021 – 91.
SAC judgment no. 7 Ao 6/2021 – 112.
SAC judgment no. 8 Ao 7/2021 – 44.
SAC judgment no. 9 Ao 7/2021 – 27.
SAC judgment no. 6 Ao 11/2021 – 48.
SAC judgment no. 8 Ao 15/2021 – 65.
SAC judgment no. 8 Ao 17/2021 – 63.
SAC judgment no. 6 Ao 21/2021 – 23.
SAC judgment no. 9 Ao 21/2021 – 111.
SAC judgment no. 6 Ao 22/2021 – 44.
SAC judgment no. 8 Ao 28/2021 – 83.
SAC judgment no. 6 As 73/2021 – 67.
SAC judgment no. 7 As 205/2021 – 45.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Šimon Chvojka, Michal Kovalčík
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
