Reasons for Deference by the Czech Constitutional Court
Vol.30,No.4(2022)
There have been numerous reasons identified for deference given by courts to decisions of other bodies or lower courts. Some pertain to structural issues such as the doctrine of separation of powers, others relate to the nature of the subject matter.
Based on a systematic empirical analysis of hundreds of decisions of the Czech Constitutional Court, the paper lists the factors that result in deferential review by the Czech Constitutional Court. The main reason for deference in the practice of the Czech Constitutional Court is the complexity of the assessed problem, including its polycentricity, and the objective gaps in knowledge. The former manifests itself mainly in the review of matters of national economy. The latter has been vividly demonstrated during the recent COVID-19 pandemic.
The paper analyses the reasons for deference given by the Czech Constitutional Court and argues that complexity of the problem and objective gaps in knowledge are sound reasons for deference. On the other hand, increased need for non-legal expertise or the doctrine of separation of powers are not in themselves able to explain when the Constitutional Court should be deferential.
Deference; Judicial Review; Constitutional Court
805–827
ALEXY, R. A Theory of Constitutional Rights. Oxford University Press, 2009.
ALLAN, T. R. S. Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Critique of Due Deference. Cambridge Law Journal. 2006, roč. 65, č. 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197306007264
ANTOŠ, M. Judikatura Ústavního soudu k sociálním právům: „nikoliv nutně nejlepší, nejvhodnější, nejúčinnější či nejmoudřejší“? Jurisprudence. 2014, roč. 23, č. 6.
AOLAIN, F. N., GROSS, O. A Skeptical View of Deference to the Executive in Times of Crisis. Israel Law Review. 2008, roč. 41, č. 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223700000364
BERNSTEIN, A. Differentiating Deference. Yale Journal on Regulation. 2016, roč. 33, č. 1.
CONTESSE, J. Contestation and Deference in the Inter-American Human Rights System. Law and Contemporary Problems, 2016, roč. 79, č. 2.
ČERVÍNEK, Z. Metoda proporcionality v praxi Ústavního soudu. Praha: Leges, 2021.
DIXON, R. The Supreme Court of Canada, Charter Dialogue, and Deference. Osgoode Hall Law Journal. 2009, roč. 47, č. 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1520789
DUHAIME, B. Subsidiarity in the Americas: What Room Is There for Deference in the Inter-American System. In: GRUSZCZYNSKI, L., WERNER, W. (eds.). Deference in International Courts and Tribunals. Oxford University Press, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198716945.003.0016
FOLEY, B. Deference and the Presumption of Constitutionality. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration, 2008.
FØLLESDAL, A. Exporting the margin of appreciation: Lessons for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2017, roč. 15, č. 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mox019
FORDHAM, M. Judicial Review Handbook. 7. vyd. Hart Publishing, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509922864
FULLER, L. The Forms and Limits of Adjudication’. Harvard Law Review. 1978, roč. 92, č. 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1340368
GERARDS, J. Pluralism, Deference and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine. European Law Journal. 2011, roč. 17, č. 1, s. 80–120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2010.00540.x
GRINC, J., BLAŽKOVÁ, K. Ústavní soud a zákonodárce v hospodářských a sociálních otázkách: ochrana ústavnosti, nebo přetahovaná o politice? Jurisprudence, 2019, č. 3.
HENCKELS, C. Proportionality and the Separation of Powers in Constitutional Review: Examining the Role of Judicial Deference. Federal Law Review. 2017, roč. 45, č. 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X1704500202
HORWITZ, P. Three Facts of Deference. Notre Dame Law Review. 2008, roč. 83, č. 3.
CHAN, C. Deference, Expertise and Information-Gathering Powers. Legal Studies. 2013, roč. 33, č. 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.2012.00259.x
CHAN, C. A preliminary framework for measuring deference in rights reasoning. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2016, roč. 14, č. 4, s. 851–882.
KAVANAGH, A. Constitutional Review under the UK Human Rights Act. Cambridge University Press, 2009.
KAVANAGH, A. Judicial Restraint in the Pursuit of Justice. University of Toronto Law Journal. 2010, roč. 60, č. 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.60.1.23
KING, J. A. Institutional Approaches to Judicial Restraint. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2008, roč. 28, č. 3, s. 409–441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqn020
KING, J. Judging Social Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139051750
KLATT, M. Positive Rights: Who Decides? Judicial Review in Balance. International Journal of Constitutional Law. 2015, roč. 13, č. 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mov019
KRATOCHVÍL, J. Test racionality: skutečně vhodný test pro sociální práva? Právník. 2015, roč. 154, č. 12, s. 1052–1074.
KRATOCHVÍL, J. Lidská práva v praxi obecných soudů. Praha: Leges, 2020.
LAWSON, G., SEIDMAN, G. Deference: The Legal Concept and the Legal Practice. Oxford University Press, 2020. DOI: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190273408.001.0001
MALÍŘ, J. Institucionální zdrženlivost ústavních soudů se zřetelem k Ústavnímu soudu ČR. In: ONDŘEJKOVÁ, J., MALÍŘ, J. (eds.). Ústavní soud ČR: strážce ústavy nad politikou nebo v politice? Leges, 2020.
PÍČOVÁ, L. Politická otázka v judikatuře Ústavního soudu ČR. Byla, je a bude? Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi. 2014, roč. 22.
SAYEED, S. Beyond the Language of “Deference”. Judicial Review. 2005, roč. 10, č. 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2005.11426422
SMEKAL, H., BENÁK, J. a kol. Mimoprávní vlivy na rozhodování českého Ústavního soudu. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, Právnická fakulta, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5817/CZ.MUNI.M210-9884-2021
SOLOVE, D. J. The Darkest Domain: Deference, Judicial Review, and the Bill of Rights. Iowa Law Review. 1999, roč. 84.
SOPER, P. The Ethics of Deference: Learning from Law’s Morals. Cambridge University Press, 2002. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613890
SUTHERLAND, E. E. Undue Deference to Experts Syndrome. Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, 2006, roč. 16, č. 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18060/17519
VYHNÁNEK, L. Proporcionálně či jinak? Problém ústavního přezkumu zásahů do sociálních práv. Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi. 2014, roč. 22, č. 3.
WALDRON, J. The Core of the Case against Judicial Review. The Yale Law Journal. 2006, roč. 115, č. 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/20455656
YOUNG, L. A. In Defence of Due Deference. Modern Law Review, 2009, roč. 72, č. 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00757.x
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2022 Jan Kratochvíl