CYIL 2010

THE QUEST OF THE LISBON TREATY IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC … Regarding Part A, the Court did not find any persuasive arguments for annulling the provisions which prescribe the minimum number of Senators (17) or Members of the Chamber of Deputies (41) authorised to initiate an action before the ECJ. 85 It also rejected the claim that the requirements for a constitutional (3/5) majority should be incorporated into an (ordinary) Act, since this was clearly reserved for the Constitution. 86 And finally, the Court explicitly rejected the petitioners’ assertion that this type of proceedings, notwithstanding their outcome, could ever constitute a legal barrier preventing the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon . 87 As this “diversionary” effort turned out to be a blind alley, the stage was set for the decisive proceedings on “Lisbon II”. VII. Second and final review by the Constitutional Court (Lisbon II) The long awaited petition from the group of Senators was finally submitted on 29 September 2009. Taking into account some public statements from the Senators within the group, 88 it was difficult to see any other reasons behind this delayed submission other than an attempt to slow down the ratification process of the Treaty of Lisbon and prevent it from entering into force for as long as possible. Needless to say, European Union institutions and the EU Presidency became somewhat concerned about the unpredictable situation in the Czech Republic, as the institutional issues (particularly the expiration of the term of the European Commission on 31 October 2009) became rather pressing. In the “Lisbon II” proceedings, the Parliament, the President and the Government were requested by the Court, as the parties according to Sec. 71c of the Constitutional Court Act, to present their written observations. We shall focus only on the submissions of the President and the Government, since the submissions from both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate tended to focus on a description of the procedure for and the deliberations leading to the approval of the Treaty of Lisbon in both Chambers and did not really deal with the substance of the case in detail. 89 (i) Petition from the Senators The petition was divided into four parts. In Part I of the petition, the group of Senators challenged the compliance of both the Treaty of Lisbon and the other Treaties

85 Ibid., para. 21. 86 Ibid., para. 19. 87 Ibid., para. 28.

88 Cf. statement of Senator Jaroslav Kubera (Civic Democratic Party), who was quoted on 11 May 2009 on the website www.novinky.cz as saying the following about the timing of the petition: “ We are not hurrying and in private we are saying – let’s give the Irish a chance. If it’s going to be after the [summer] holidays, nothing will happen. At least the boys in Brussels will get a bit nervous. ” (Available in Czech on http://www.novinky.cz/domaci/168391-nechejme-kluky-v-bruselu-trochu-znervoznet-rikaji-odpurci lisabonu.html.) 89 The written submissions from the Chamber of Deputies were delivered to the Court on 8 October 2009, and the observations of the Senate on 14 October 2009.

47