CYIL 2010

THE QUEST OF THE LISBON TREATY IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC … constitutional order; 79 and (ii) reviews of compliance of international treaties with the constitutional order. 80 Thus, this “diversionary” effort was probably motivated by an attempt to gain some additional time for the direct challenge against the Treaty of Lisbon, but it did not really work. The Constitutional Court would not have any of the delaying tactics and dismissed the petition as manifestly unfounded with a speed rarely seen in the judicial sphere (the word “supersonic” comes to mind), yet with persuasive legal reasoning. 81 (i) Petition from the Senators The petition from 17 Senators, filed with the Constitutional Court on 1 September 2009, related to the so-called ”Lisbon Amendment” to the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament. The group of Senators was requesting the annulment of selected parts of the Rules of Procedure as unconstitutional. In Part A, the petitioners, amongst others, proposed that the Constitutional Court annul the provisions which prescribe the minimum number of Senators (17) or Members of the Chamber of Deputies (41) authorised to initiate, in their respective Chamber, the bringing of an action to the Court of Justice of the EU for a breach of the principle of subsidiarity. In Part B, the petitioners argued in several places that the “ fundamental flaw in the implementing law ” (as the Senators referred to the Amendment to the Rules of Procedure) “ are the provisions which it lacks .” Apart from requests to confirm their assertions as to the limits on transfers of competences, their concept of sovereignty and judicial means of controlling and limiting the effects of EU law (incl. having some EU legal acts declared inapplicable by the Constitutional Court), the petitioners also required that all of the “ passerelle clauses ” and also the “ flexibility clause ” (Art. 352 TFEU) were subject to approval by both Chambers of the Parliament by a constitutional (3/5) majority. The petitioners also requested that the Constitutional Court rule that the adoption of the legal modifications outlined by the petitioners is a precondition for the completion of the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, thus effectively preventing its ratification for the entire period before these changes are adopted in the Parliament. (ii) Position of the Government On 29 September 2009, the Government approved its statement on the petition filed by the group of Senators. 82 In preparing its statement, the Government acted at the request of the Constitutional Court and played the role of an amicus curiae , not being formally a party to the proceedings. On the basis of a thorough legal analysis of the complaint, the Government came to the conclusion that the complaint from the group of Senators was unsubstantiated as concerns its first part (Part A) and that the remaining part (Part B) contained 79 Art. 87 (1) (a) of the Constitution. 80 Art. 87 (2) of the Constitution. 81 The petition was submitted on 1 September 2009 and the Constitutional Court’s order dismissing the case was adopted on 6 October 2009 and published on its website on the same day. 82 Resolution of the Government of the Czech Republic No. 1243/2009 of 29 September 2009.

45