CYIL 2010

EMIL RUFFER CYIL 1 ȍ2010Ȏ to ensure protection of the standard. However, the Court has observed nothing of that sort at the present time. 55 The Constitutional Court found that in the present situation the European institutional arrangement of the standard of protection for human rights and fundamental freedoms was compatible with the standard provided by the Czech constitutional order. In the event of a conflict between sources governing the rights and freedoms of individuals under the EU Charter and the (Czech) Charter, the applying institutions will naturally give precedence to the instrument that provides individuals with a higher standard of protection. 56  EU values and suspension of rights under EU membership – Art. 7 TEU Concerning the last group of the Senate’s objections, in which the Senate speculated on possible discrepancies between the values on which the Union was founded and the values inherent in the Czech constitutional order, 57 the Constitutional Court stated that the values mentioned in Art. 2 and Art. 7 TEU were fundamentally consistent with the values on which the “material core” of the Czech Constitution rests [cf. Art. 1 (1), Art. 5, Art. 6 of the Constitution, Art. 1, Art. 2 (1), Art. 3, Chapter IV of the Charter]. 58 The Court stressed that “it is entirely evident that in this regard the Treaty of Lisbon is consistent with the inviolable principles protected by the Czech constitutional order and that European law is based on fundamental human and democratic values, common to and shared by all EU states.” In this context, the Court also pointed out that despite the emphasis placed on the concept of state sovereignty by the Senate, in a modern, democratic state, governed by the rule of law, state sovereignty was not an aim in itself, in isolation, but was a means for fulfilling the fundamental values on which the constitutional state governed by the rule of law was founded. 59 IV. Completion of the procedure in the Parliament After the judgement of the Constitutional Court of 26 November 2008, there was no further legal obstacle for the Parliament to give its consent to the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon. The debate on the Treaty continued, without substantial delays, in the Chamber of Deputies, where it went through second reading on the 3 rd , 17 th and 18 th of February 2009. The Chamber of Deputies then expressed its consent to the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon on 18 February 2009. 60 However, 55 Ibid., para. 196. 56 Ibid., para. 202. 57 Of all the issues raised in the petition from the Senate, this artificial “problem” was probably the most fanciful one. 60 Resolution No. 1072 of 18 January 2009 was approved by 125 votes in favour (120 were required), 61 votes were against (197 Deputies out of 200 were present). An accompanying Resolution No. 1072/1 contained a declaration of the Chamber of Deputies concerning the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, which confirmed that the EU Charter did not have any retroactive effects and therefore could 58 Ibid., para. 208. 59 Ibid., para. 209.

38