The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic is established directly by the Constitution and does not form part of the system of general courts. Its organization, proceedings at the Court, salary conditions for the Justices and disciplinary infractions and disciplinary proceedings are stipulated in the Act on the Constitutional Court. According to the Constitution the Constitutional Court is the judicial body responsible for the protection of constitutionality. This is the source of its exclusive and indispensable position in the system of the division of powers.

The Constitutional Court is independent on any constitutional or other state bodies and consists of independent Justices. It is neither subordinated nor responsible to any constitutional body. The independence of the Court and the Justices is the condition of their impartial and correct ruling. Therefore it is incompatible with the duties of a Justice to hold any other salaried positions or to be engaged in any other profitmaking activity.

However, a Justice may carry out activities in the area of science, teaching, literature or arts provided that such activities are not unsuitable for the office of a Justice, its significance and dignity, and would not lead to undermining of confidence in the independence and the impartiality of the ruling of the Court. The office of the Justice is also incompatible with membership in any political party or political movement.

Any citizen of full integrity who is eligible to be elected to the Senate, who was graduated from a university law school and has been active in the legal profession for at least ten years may be appointed Justice of the Constitutional Court. A Justice should also have high moral and ethical qualities.

Justices of the Constitutional Court are appointed by the President of the Republic after a request for the consent by the Senate. As to the appointment of the current Justices the consent was given the Assembly of Deputies, because the Senate had not yet been established in 1996.

However, the President of the Republic has no right to recall the Justices.

The President of the Republic appoints one Chairperson and two Deputy Chairpersons from the Justices. A Justice of the Constitutional Court assumes his office by taking the official oath administered by the President of the Republic.

Justices may not be prosecuted for administrative offenses and they may be criminally prosecuted only with the consent of the Senate. The Justice of the Constitutional Court has the right to refuse to give evidence concerning the facts about which he learned in connection with his duties even after he has ceased to be a Justice.

The Court acts in the Plenum, which is composed of all Justices, or in four Panels of three members. The Plenum is composed of all Justices and if not stipulated otherwise by the Act on the Constitutional Court, it may act and take decisions when at least ten Justices are present. The law determines the cases when the agreement of at least nine present Justices is necessary. The Plenum of the Constitutional Court decides in the following matters: cancellation of Acts or of their individual provisions, cancellation of other legal regulations or their individual provisions, impeachment by the Senate of the President of the Republic, the Presidential proposal to repeal a decision of the Parliamentary Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, determination whether a decision on the dissolution of a political party or another decision regarding the activity of a political party conforms with constitutional or other laws, other matters listed in Art. 87, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, if the Panel has not resolved them due to the fact that no proposed resolution received a majority of votes, determination of the standpoint of the Court towards the legal opinion of the Panel, which differs from the legal opinion of the Constitutional Court expressed in its ruling, decision on other matters, if they are reserved for this this level, regulation of its internal relations, establishment of Panels and of the rules for the distribution of agenda among them.

All other matters are decided by the Panels (i.e. the constitutional petitions filed by the bodies of local government against illegal intervention by the State, constitutional petitions filed against decisions in legal force and other interventions of of public authorities, which violate the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms, appeals against the decisions in the matters of confirmation of the election of a Deputy or a Senator, cases of doubts on the loss of legibility to be elected and on the incompatibility of carrying out the offices of a Deputy or a Senator according to Art. 25 of the Constitution, the measures that are essential for the implementation of a ruling by an international court, which is binding for the Czech Republic, unless it can be implemented differently, and the disputes regarding the scope of powers of state authorities and local government, unless such disputes are under the jurisdiction of a different body). The Panel can adopt resolutions when all its members are present. The resolution is adopted by the majority of votes.

In accordance with the Constitution the judicial system comprises also the Supreme Administrative Court that has yet to be established. Therefore it is currently the Constitutional Court which processes its agenda.

The proceedings at the Constitutional Court commence on the day the petition is delivered to the Court. Parties to the proceedings are the petitioner and those specified by the law. Physical or legal persons as parties to the proceedings must be represented according to the law by a lawyer, commercial lawyer or a notary. In the Act No. 85/96 on the Bar the categories of lawyers and commercial lawyers were merged and therefore nowadays the parties are represented usually by lawyers. The language of the proceedings is Czech, but during the verbal hearing the parties may use their mother language. In this case the Court shall call upon the assistance of an interpreter. The Court need not consider the petitions in the order in which they were submitted if it resolves that the matter, which concerns some of the petitions, is urgent.

A party to the proceedings may declare at the latest at the beginning of the first oral hearing that he does not accept such Justice whom he considers to be biased.

If the petition has to be decided upon by the Plenum, the matter is assigned to the Justice - Rapporteur, who is designated by the work schedule. Some tasks may be executed by the Assistant of the Rapporteur. Based on the reasons stipulated by law, the Rapporteur may reject the petition by means of a resolution, without holding an oral hearing and in the absence of the parties if the petitioner did not eliminate the vices in the petition within the period determined thereto, or if the petition was submitted after the proper deadline, or if the petition was submitted by a person clearly not eligible to do so, or if the said petition does belong to the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, or if the submitted petition is inadmissible. The Panel will reject the petition by means of a resolution without oral hearing and in the absence of the parties if the petition is clearly unjustified, or if the Panel finds in the petition, submitted pursuant to § 64, Art. 1 to 4, i.e. in the proceedings for cancellation of Acts or other legal regulations or their individual provisions, the reasons for refusal pursuant to Article 1 or item a).

Otherwise the Rapporteur prepares the matter for the Plenum or for the Panels. In the matters dealt with pursuant to Art. 87, § 1 of the Constitution the hearing that takes place is oral. If not stipulated otherwise by the law the Court with the agreement of the parties may refrain from the oral hearing. The oral hearing is public. The Court may limit or exclude attendance by the public, if this required due to important interests of the state or of the parties to the proceeding or because of maintaining morality.

The summons for the oral hearing must be delivered so that the party has enough time to get prepared for the hearing, usually at least five days in advance.

The Constitutional Court carries out the reasoning necessary to establish the facts of the case. (The Constitutional Court respects the principle of free evaluation of evidence by general courts . however, in the evaluation of the constitutional petition the Court is not obliged to consider the factual findings made in previous proceedings. In particular the Court must not be obliged to do so if the Court assumes that due to the

incomplete probatory proceedings and insufficient factual finding the right for judicial protection pursuant to Art. 36 of the Charter or the right for

fair trial pursuant to Art. 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was violated. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic of 27 November 1996, Ref. No. I US 167/94.) All courts, public authorities and other state institutions will provide assistance to the Constitutional Court in procuring evidence for its decision-making. Every citizen is obliged to appear at the Court and testify as a witness. It is possible to refuse to testify only in the case that it could bring the citizen or the persons close to him in the jeopardy of criminal prosecution.

The Constitutional Court decides the matter itself by judgment and all other issues by ruling or resolution. Judgments shall be annocued publicly in the name of the Republic. This applies also if in the case when the Court decided without an oral hearing.

The judgments, in which it was decided on the proposals to cancel an Act or other legal regulation or an individual provision thereof, on the constitutional action against the President of the Republic, and on the proposal to cancel the resolution of the Chamber of Deputies or the Senate, are published in the Collection of Laws of the Czech Republic. The publication includes the statement and the part of the reasoning, from which it is clear, what is the legal opinion of the Constitutional Court.

The judgments on the cancellation of Acts are enforceable as of the day of their publication in the Collection of Laws, if not decided otherwise by the Constitutional Court. The judgments on the constitutional action against the President of the Republic, on the proposal to cancel the resolution of the Chamber of Deputies or the Senate, on the remedial action

against the decision in the matter of election of a Deputy or a Senator and in the case of doubts on the loss of the eligibility to be elected and on the incompatibility of executing the functions of a Deputy or a Senator are enforceable by its publication. Other judgments are enforceable by the delivery of their written copy to the parties.

All judgments adopted by the Constitutional Court during the calendar year are published in the Collection of Laws and Resolutions of the Constitutional Court. The resolutions may be published here as well, if the Plenum decides so.

According to Art. 89, § 2 of the Constitution the enforceable decisions of the Constitutional Court are biding for all governmental bodies and persons. That means that the binding judgments of the Constitutional Court take effect not only to the parties to the proceedings (inter partes), but also to all bodies and persons (erga omnes). The subject which still remains somewhat unclear is the question, whether it is only the judgment, which is binding or whether it is also the reasoning. The Constitutional Court decides by judgment in the matter itself and as a result it is concluded that the judgments are binding. There is already no dispute on this fact. As far as the second question is concerned, according to some opinions it is only the statement, which is binding. However, the statement reads usually as follows: The Constitutional Court overrules, or the judgment of the regional court X, Ref. No. Y, dated Z, is canceled. The reasons for such motion are put in details in the qualified way in the reasoning. There it is mentioned when, how and through what the quaranteed constitutional right or freedom was violated. Therefore it seems logical that the reasoning is binding as well.

All judgments adopted by the Constitutional Court during the calendar year are published in the Collection of Laws and Resolutions of the Constitutional Court.

Constitutional petitions prevail in the practical activity of the Constitutional Court. Therefore the proceedings for the constitutional petitions will be mentioned briefly in the following text. The constitutional petition may be submitted by physical or legal person, if the person claims that by means of legally binding decision from the proceedings to which the petitioner was a party, by a measure or by another intervention of the public authority a fundamental right or freedom was violated, which is guaranteed by a Constitutional Act or by an International Treaty, which takes precedence to the national law. The petition may be also submitted by a village council or municipality or another body at a higher level of the local government, if the right for carrying out the local government was violated. their petition may be also submitted by a political party if it claims that the decision on its dissolution or another decision concerning its activity is not in conformity with constitutional or other regulations. The petition should be submitted within 60 days from the day of the delivery of the decision on the last remedy, which is provided by the law for the protection of the right, and if this is not the case, from the day when the fact occurred, which is subject of the petition. A political party has the time period of 30 days for submitting a petition. Together with the petition, a proposal to cancel an Act or another legal regulation or an individual provision thereof may be submitted as well. There petition is not admissible if the petitioner has not yet used all procedural remedies, which are provided by the law for the protection of his right. The constitutional complaint represents also a fundamental prerequisite for the possibility to approach the European Court for Human Rights in Strasbourg with a submission. The petition is not rejected if through its significance it substantially exceeds own interests of the petitioner and if it was submitted within one year from the day, when the fact occurred, which is the subject of the petition. The petition is also not rejected if the proceedings on the submitted remedy is subject to the delays, which cause or may cause serious and indivertible damage to the petitioner. The parties to the proceedings are the petitioner and the government body or other authority, against which intervention is the petition directed. Secondary parties may also participate in the proceedings. The Constitutional Court will decide by means of the judgment, through which the petition will be fully approved, of will be fully rejected or will be partially approved or rejected.

(The Act on the Constitutional Court enables that the petitioner refrains from other procedural means provided by the law for the protection his right. However, in such case the petitioner carries the risk of failure in the matter, if in the obligatory evaluation whether the petition by its importance does significantly exceed the own interests of the petitioner, the constitutional Court reaches the conclusion, which is not in favour of the petitioner. Therefore this does not create the situation when the Constitutional Court would enter the proceedings in place of the bodies of second instance, but it is a special procedure sanctioned by the law - givers. Judgment Ref. No. II 193/94.)

In the next part the topics related to the question of legal value of the judgment of the Constitutional Court will be presented. This problem does not appear in the judgments that cancel Acts or other legal regulations or individual provisions there of, thus in the cases of abstract control of legal standards. The reason why this is the case is probably the fact that the Constitutional Court decides by its judgment and that the judgment is published in the Collection of Laws.

Another situation, however, occurs in the case of concrete control of legal standards. According to the opinion of some experts in constitutional law the decisions of the Constitutional Court are binding only for the parties to the proceedings. According to such opinion, in a concrete situation the general court should decide either in conformity with the proceeding decision of the Constitutional Court, or it can decide differently, or the matter may be submitted to the Constitutional Court.

Several concrete cases will be presented.

Non-observance of the judgments of the Constitutional Court appeared also in the area of restitutions. The conduct of the administrative authorities and general courts is in this case even more embarrassing, because the persons involved are mostly the citizens, who suffered during the past regime and most of them are already in the age of retirement. As an example it is possible to mention the judgment of the Constitutional Court Ref. No. IV US 51/54 of 2nd June 1994 concerning the principle of verbality and public nature of the proceedings. In this case the decision of the Land Authority on the compensation, which was paid, was reviewed by a court without an oral hearing, pursuant to the provision valid at that time. The obligatory opinion of the Constitutional Court on the paid compensation was not respected by the same administrative body in another restitution case, and the decision was made similarly to the previous case. This second decision was canceled by the ruling of the Constitutional Court as well.

In the judgment the Constitutional Court took standpoint towards the implementation of the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure, which enables to review administrative decisions without public hearing. Neither this opinion of the Constitutional Court was respected and consequently the Constitutional Court has canceled several judgments that implemented the provision and at the end the provision itself was canceled.

In another restitution case (Ref. No. II US 23/97) there was therefore no other way for the Constitutional Court but to rule as follows:

The judgments of general courts, with their refusals to deal with the restitution claim of the complainant from the aspect of judicature of the Constitutional Court, represent therefore predominantly a proof of their absolute failure, based on their inability to perceive the monstrous substance of the previous regime, and subsequently, also to understand the role, which fell to the Constitutional Court in relation to the justice in a post - totalitarian country. After all it is the reluctance of the courts to implement and to construe the restitution regulations in conformance with the judicature of the Constitutional Court, which is one of the most significant proofs of the necessity for the existence of the Constitutional Court and its powers towards general courts. last but not least the refusal of the regional court represents also a clear contempt of the citizen, since pursuant to § 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure the courts are called for the prompt and effective protection of the rights of the citizen, since the regional court ruled with the awareness of the existence of the Constitutional Court, the constitutional petition as an utmost means for the protection of rights and the already preceding judicature, therefore with the awareness of further delays in the matter.

In another restitution matter Ref. No I US 70/96 the general court determined that it is not obliged by the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, since the decision were made in concrete matters and the obligation of such decisions for other matters cannot be deduced from any legal provision. the Constitutional Court has not left unnoticed the standpoint of the regional court that it is not obliged by the decisions and has made the following statement: Probably it is possible to agree that - generally speaking - these were the decisions in concrete matters, by which in a certain concrete case the general court does not feel to be obliged. Any generalization, however, is not appropriate.

One of the first decisions in criminal matters, which was not respected by general courts, and which caused many reactions in articles and discussions among the professional community, was the case when the Constitutional Court canceled in the end of September 1996 the judgments of the courts by which the defendant was to unsuspended imprisonment for serious violent crimes. In the given case the Constitutional Court was considering the right for defense against the interest of the state on the due execution of justice, which should be carried out without undue delay and within reasonable time. The Constitutional Court canceled the decision of the general court, and instructed the court not to take into account certain time limits for the custody because of the obstructions from the side of the petitioner. According to the High Court the Constitutional Court exceeded its powers, and therefore the judgment was not respected and the defendant was released.

However, several month later in another criminal matter the Supreme Court did not approve the petition of the Minister of Justice for the violation of law to the disadvantage of the defendant and the challenged resolution was canceled with the reasoning that period between 15 April 1997 and 26 May 1997 will not be included in the time limit due to the circumstances exclusively on the side of the petitioner and his lawyer. This interpretation of the time period is based on the same principles as the judgment of the Constitutional Court (published under No. 239/96 in the Collection of Laws).

The fact that some general courts refused to be subject to the judgments dealing with permanent refusal of military service and alternative civil service and to the principle ne bis in idem and to take the foregoing as a precedent, led even to the situation that the press was publishing articles on the war of courts.

On 18 September 1995 the Constitutional Court decided in the matter ref. No IV US 81/95 that the principle ne bis idem and thus also the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter were violated by the court decisions in case when the petitioner has been already once condemned with legal force because he refused to serve in the armed forces. The Constitutional Court established that the petitioner stated at the enlistment procedure that he refuses the obligatory military service and the alternative civil service because of his religious faith, and furthermore he stated that he would prefer to go to jail. For this act the petitioner was condemned. After the sentence came into legal force, he received another call-up paper. The petitioner did not enter the military service and because of that he was repeatedly condemned. After considering all circumstances the Panel of the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that in the case of the petitioner the principle ne bis listed in idem was violated and thus also the fundamental rights listed in the Charter were violated as well. If the law determines stricter penalty for those who will not enter the military service

with the intention to avoid the service permanently, it is not acceptable to construe this provision such that permanently means in fact temporarily or on a short - term basis. According to the opinion of the Constitutional Court at the next call-up the petitioner only maintained the previously expressed will not to enter the military service. The Constitutional Court mentioned that it assumes that its foregoing fundamental decision will be a guideline for general courts in their future decision - making concerning the extent of the penalty for those who permanently refuse the military service and the alternative civil service. The judgment was published in the Collection of Judgments and Resolutions of the Constitutional Court. According Court. According to Art. 89 of the Constitution the executable decisions of the Constitutional Court are binding for all authorities and persons. It is beyond doubt that the judgments are binding for all authorities including the courts, and for the whole body of courts as well.

However, this decision has not become a guideline, which was reflected in the case of a young man who was supposed to carry out alternative civil service. He started to carry out the service, but with regard to his conscience he decided not to continue in it and he left the service permanently without a consent of the respective authorities. For this act he was condemned, he did not carry out the service either, and therefore the conviction followed. Both penalties were carried out in full extent. Subsequently the Minister of Justice submitted a petition in favour of the claimant. The Supreme Court did not cancel the challenged decision, although an academic statement on the violation of law has been made. The /Supreme Court was making the decision several months after the foregoing judgment of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court stated that in the case of the sentence, in which the academic statement on the violation of law was made and the original decision was not canceled, it is not a constitutional petition which would be apparently unfounded, neither it is an intervention into the jurisdictive activity of the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Court as the body for the protection of constitutionality based its reasoning on Art. 40 of the Charter, which stipulates that nobody may be prosecuted for the act, for which he was already condemned with legal force or was acquitted of the accusation. At the same time the Supreme Court did not respect the fact that the principle ne bis in idem found its place also in Art. 4 of the Protocol No. 7 to the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. On 20 March 1997 the Constitutional Court canceled the sentence of the Supreme Court.

In October 1997, regardless to the judgment of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court confirmed its proceeding sentence.

On 2 April 1998 the Constitutional Court cancels again the sentence of the Supreme Court by the judgment, in which a statement is made on the significance of the judgments of the Constitutional Court. The Supreme Court deduced indefensibility of the interpretation resulting from the judgment of the Constitutional Court as far as the identity of the act is concerned, and this interpretation was designated legally unsubstantiated. The Supreme Court proposed that the Panel in charge should distance itself from the legal opinion expressed by the Panel of the Constitutional Court on 20 March 1997. The Constitutional Court stated in its judgment among others that if the Supreme Court in this matter of the claimant, in which the decision of the Supreme Court had been canceled by the causation judgment of the Constitutional Court, did not take into account in the following proceedings and the resulting decision the deductions and the conclusions based on this judgment, without for instance supplementing the factual findings, based on which the Supreme court could possibly get to a different evaluation of the said act, there is no other way but to cancel the sentence again as contradictory to Art. 89, § 2 of the Constitution, without having any possibility to return anyhow to the merit of the matter.

In the conclusion the Constitutional Court added that it is should be mentioned that the decision of the Supreme Court in this matter - as far as the obligatory character of the judgment is concerned - is not in conformity with the decisions of other Panels of the same Court, since the Supreme Court in other matter respected the legal opinion expressed by the judgment of the Constitutional Court and governed the new decision accordingly.

In September two judges of the Supreme Court refused to submit to the standpoint of the Constitutional Court and they let themselves to be disqualified from the following proceedings. After an intervention of the Minister of Justice the disqualification of both judges from the following deliberation of the matter was canceled. A different legal opinion may not be a reason for disqualification of the judge from a pending matter.

Subsequently the Supreme Court submitted a proposal to cancel the contradictory provision of the Criminal Code, dealing with the refusal to enter the military service, as well as the Act on the Military. The Constitutional Court refused the proposal and in the reasoning among others the following was stated: The Constitutional Court believes that in a democratic legal state, which is understood predominantly as a substantive legal state, it is not possible to admit the use of a valid legal regulation in such a way, which is in conflict with any of the fundamental constitutional principles, which include beyond doubt also the procedural principle ne bis in idem. The Constitutional Court is convinced that the duty of the judges to find the justice does not mean only to look for direct, concrete and explicit instruction in the text of laws, but also a duty to ascertain and to formulate what is a concrete justice, even there where the point is in the interpretation of abstract standards, constitutional principles, provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and the obligations resulting from International Treaties. Out of many conceivable interpretation of the law it is always necessary to use that one that respects the constitutional principles. Judgment of the Plenum of the Constitutional Court Ref. No. 19/98.

During 1999 the standpoints are becoming to be changed. In January a judge of a general court stated in the legal matter dealing with restitution that the judgment of the Constitutional Court will be respected.

In another case the execution of the penalty was suspended based on the complaint for the violation of law. The Supreme Court approved the petition by the Minister and the violation of law. The Supreme Court approved the petition by the Minister and the penalty was canceled. The Municipal Court then refrained from the penalty, but insisted on the quilt. The petitioner submitted a constitutional petition, which was approved by the Constitutional Court. In March the court acquitted the young man of the accusation and thus decided according to the judgment of the Constitutional Court. The last case which may be considered interesting is the case of the man, who refused the military service in 1959 due to his confession, and was condemned for that.

In 1997 the Minister of Justice submitted a petition for the violation of law. The Supreme Court refused the petition, and the Constitutional Court approved in October 1998 the petition against this decision, since according to the Constitutional Court the petitioner had had the right to refuse the military service already at that time, namely based on the Art. 18 of the General Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. The core of the dispute was not the question of repeated punishment, but the question, whether a citizen had the right to refuse the military service already in the 50s. In March the Supreme Court changed its original decision and canceled the sentence. One of the judges in charge mentioned: "Our Panel was feeling obliged by the judgment of the Constitutional Court."

On 27 August 1999 the Supreme Court recognized at last the authority of the Constitutional Court and submitted to its decision. A sentence of a petitioner to unsuspended penalty was canceled.

The Chairmen of the Supreme Court commented to this case: "I am glad that the case has finished and the judges of the Supreme Court reasonably consider the judgment of the Constitutional Court to be binding. This is a very positive signal. The judicature has started to demonstrate that it respects the Constitution and that the times excess are gone. This is extremely important for a legal state."

The Justice of the Constitutional Court, Mr. Pavel Varvarovsky, who made a landmark verdict in a similar case four years ago, stated: "I consider the result to be a proof that what we do here is not completely useless."

In conclusion it is possible to say that sometimes the courts of lower instance do not want to respect even the decision of the courts of higher instance. Concerning the situation with respecting the judgments of the Constitutional Court one of the reasons may be the fact that the Constitutional Court was formed in 1993 and the individual cases are judged by the Constitutional Court rather according to the natural view on the law, which is not popular among the judges of general courts, who stick to the exact wording of particular provisions. This is also a consequence of the communist history, when a judge was basically only an officer, who interpreted a concrete legal problem. Furthermore the general courts consider the judgment binding only in the very particular case. In other analogous cases they usually do not follow the judgment. That could mean that one defendant may win the case thanks to the judgment of the Constitutional Court, and another defendant, accused for the same act, may be condemned. Conversely the Justices of the Constitutional Court believe that their statements have the nature of precedent. The precedent principle is refused also by the Deputy for C SSD (Czech Social Democratic Party) Mr. Koudelka. The Constitutional Court comes with new approaches that are in conflict with the established court routine. Some judges even affirm that they have to decide according to law and not according to court decisions.

It is presume and it also results from the course of action of general courts during 1999 that the judges of general courts gradually realize that the Constitutional Court has not only the authority for formal decisions, but also to express legally binding opinions, and that they therefore not eligible to resist the opinions of the Justices of the Constitutional Court, even if they are different to their opinions and they do not agree with them. However, to present a full picture it is necessary to mention that this is the case of some individual judges in certain individual cases, since there is a majority of judges for whom it is quite inconceivable not to respect the binding legal opinion, either of the superior court of even of the Constitutional Court.

Mr. Koudelka: "The decisions of the Constitutional Court are binding for everybody. At this point the Constitutional Court are binding for everybody. At this point the Constitutional Court forgets that this is the obligation in the particular matter, not in general, because our law is not based on the principle of precedent".