in the justification, the problem that the constitutional court had with the proposal of the president and deputies will be explained in detail. But it is already clear that the Constitutional Court very correctly refused to do the work for members of parliament. The wording of section 363 itself can be vague, which is certainly a bigger problem in criminal law than, for example, in constitutional law. Both the president and the deputies relied on this in their proposals for its abolition.
Since it is about the freedom of citizens, criminal legislation, whether procedural or substantive, should contain clear rules. But the Constitutional Court said, and here we are again on the floor of constitutional law, where different principles are more balanced than looking for completely unambiguous answers, that the wording of section 363 itself does not contradict either the Constitution or international conventions, such as for example, the European Convention on Human Rights. And that is a perfectly legitimate legal opinion.
So, if politicians do not like the wording of §363, it is their task, preferably members of parliament, of course, to change it.
You can read the whole article if you buy a Digital subscription of .week. We now also offer the option to purchase joint access to .tježen and Denník N.
sign up to subscribe
If you found an error, write to [email protected].