CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

SANDRA BROŽOVÁ CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ On the basis of the fundamental principle of equal treatment, the Court of Justice of the EU clearly described the then existing practice of granting compensation allowances to certain Czech citizens with lower pensions contrary to EU law, because this allowance was linked to conditions of Czech citizenship and permanent residency within the Czech territory. The Court of Justice of the EU did not find the introduction of such compensatory allowances as unacceptable as a whole but only in connection with its limiting conditions leading to discrimination on the basis of nationality. The Court in Luxembourg explicitly stated that this compensatory allowance would be completely tolerable if granted to all citizens of all EU Member States declaring themselves in a comparable situation with past employment in Slovak enterprises at the times of Czechoslovakia. This extensive interpretation would cause a significant enlargement of the personal scope of its application and, moreover, it could bring far-reaching public budget spending that could misbalance the whole system of publicly financed pension schemes in the Czech Republic. Therefore, the Czech legislature subsequently decided to remove the compensatory allowance for pension entitlements gained completely before 1993 from the law regulating pension system and substantively amended the mechanism of granting such compensation for pensioners claiming after 1993. 14 Subsequently, the Czech Constitutional Court 15 unequivocally refused to comply with the general rule of EU law primacy that is the cornerstone of European integration’s supranational character that was expressed by the legal reasoning in the judgment from Luxembourg. This approach manifestly presented by the Czech supreme authority entitled to interpret the Constitution and the compatibility of international treaties with the constitutional order, was labelled as rebellion and unprecedented opposition . 16 The Czech Constitutional Court declared that the Court of Justice of the EU was acting outside the limits of its competence transferred to it by sovereign Member States. 17 The Czech Constitutional Court also claimed that the Court of Justice of the EU disregarded some important facts. The Czech Constitutional Court as an institution of a Member State, when issuing such decision, did not respect the principle of loyalty and sincere cooperation enshrined in Art. 4 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). 3. Succession after federation vol. 2 – relations towards third countries The above-described problem with pensions for citizens formerly working for the Slovak side of federation, although mostly in a formal way only, was heavily discussed among lawyers, public administration and social affairs experts, and also by general public. However, we can now turn our attention to other cases that also add some interesting information about how the Czech administrative judiciary uses interpretation of international treaties to decide cases of particular citizens or foreigners claiming benefits from the Czech social security system. Another federation that was dissolved in the beginning of the 1990s was the Soviet Union. During the time of socialistic Czechoslovakia, the relations to the Soviet Union were developed as close and friendly, at least at the formal political level, which included exchange of particular professionals and scientific experts. It was not uncommon then for Soviet citizens to come to work in Czechoslovakia. A new wave of immigration from post-Soviet republics 14 See inserted Section 106a in the Act on Pension Insurance, No. 155/1995 Coll. in the Czech Republic. 15 Czech Constitutional Court, Case No. PL ÚS 5/12. 16 KŘEPELKA, Filip. The imperfect dismantlement of the Czechoslovak Pension System as an impulse for rebellion against European Union Law. European Journal of Social Law , No. 4, 2012, pp. 282 – 298, p. 283 and 289. 17 Czech Constitutional Court, Case No PL ÚS 5/12.

472