Originally from The Journal of Eurasian Law (JEL)

I. Introduction

Findings of the Court of Justice of the European Union1 in the form of famous decisions such as Costa v. ENEL, Simenthall, and Internationale Handelsgeselschaft2 form the fundamentals for the effective functioning of EU law3 across the EU. However, the doctrine of ultimate primacy without exception sometimes conflicts with the constitutionally protected values of the member states. Constitutional or other supreme courts as the main defenders of those values can assume two main alternatives: The first is the acceptance of ultimate application of the primacy principle. That means to acknowledge the position of the Court of Justice and its arguments without exception. The second alternative involves a reluctance to apply the ultimate priority of EU law. In this case the constitutional courts define the limits and conditions under which EU law will prevail.

The courts of the new EU member states added in 2004 and 2007 did not stay passive and have expressed their opinions in several cases. Their activity was quite anticipated and connected with perceived threats or challenges. One reason for this is that threats can be found in the different legal traditions of new member states.4 Special concerns regarding their relatively young sovereignty also served as another basis for the doubts. Soon after May 1, 2004, several decisions of the constitutional courts dealing with EU law issues had appeared. In this article I will focus on the evaluation of the position of Czech Constitutional Court (CCC).