In an interview with Právo and Novinky, Marie Zámečníková from the Department of Constitutional Law at Masaryk University suggests that the Constitutional Court could partially agree with the ANO movement and still not revoke the law that reduced pension valorization since June.
The Constitutional Court is currently examining whether the legislative process was flawed. Initially, it is looking at whether the legislative process was without defects. The Court will scrutinize whether the reasons for declaring a legislative emergency were met. If they were not, it would determine whether this violation is significant enough to render the entire process unconstitutional. The Court has repeatedly dealt with this issue in the past.
In recent jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, we also find a conclusion that there can be significant violations of the rules of the legislative process that conflict with the Constitution, but this does not necessarily have to result in the repeal of the law.
The Constitutional Court can declare a violation of the procedure and yet not repeal an otherwise materially flawless law to maintain the law’s legal certainty or predictability. Watching which side the Constitutional Court will lean towards will be very interesting. Without a doubt, it will be a critical decision for the future interpretation of the rules of the legislative process.
If the procedure is deemed proper according to the Constitutional Court, it will evaluate whether the law was retroactive and possibly violated legitimate expectations. It is a question of whether it will be a true retroactivity, which is unacceptable, or a false one, which is permissible.
This simple question does not have an easy answer. It is also important to realize that this is a so-called social law. These are generally closely related to the state budget and are simply expensive. The Constitutional Court reviews them somewhat differently because they are primarily so-called political issues, and it approaches them with restraint.