Ignoring the principle of "listen to the other side": the Constitutional Court undermined the foundations of a fair trial in its haste

"Constitutional coup"? Minister Macinka is a politician, not a lawyer; his tool is shorthand, not expert analysis. And here his words are, unfortunately, not completely out of place. A constitutional coup does not have to be committed by a mob with pitchforks and torches. More often, it happens through the gradual dismantling of procedural rights, judgment after judgment, measure after measure. And then suddenly you can't help but be surprised that you can't leave your house freely, that your elections were canceled, that your property was confiscated, that you are paying for a foreign war, or that you were even forced into it - all in the interest of the "good" or "values" promoted by the media, and whoever resists, even with verbal criticism, is covered with evil.

Wednesday's decision by @usoud_official broke several important principles defending basic rights against the will. One of them was the principle "listen to the other side before you decide", in Latin "audiatur et altera pars". As written in the decision itself, the president delivered his proposal to the ÚS on Monday, June 22. "in the evening" and already on Wednesday 24.6. at noon, the judges announced the result at a press conference. It is virtually impossible for the other affected party (the government) to be contacted and comment on the matter within a single working day (Tuesday). This cannot be done in one day. It is impossible to write a detailed submission, which was apparently written by the castle's lawyers for several weeks, in a day, including correspondence to Brno and back. But the government apparently did not even get this chance - nothing is written about it in the justification of the preliminary measure, whereas at other times the ÚS always summarizes the arguments of the petitioner, the arguments of the opponents and the arguments of the parties concerned.

Here, the Constitutional Court apparently COMPLETELY FAILED to be interested in a different opinion than the president-petitioner, much less to deal with the arguments of the other side. The Constitutional Court decided UNILATERALLY, without HEARING THE OTHER PARTY. Honor be to judges Wintra and Říhová, who wrote at least part of the arguments against the president's proposal in a dissenting opinion, and that relatively well; but the government had and could get this option!!

It is the job of the people of the law to "hear the grass grow" and not remain silent when seemingly boring, but in fact key procedural rules are being dismantled. Or if they are crooked. Why? Because it leads first to small grievances, later to greater grievances, and finally to totalitarianism.

Surely you remember the covid times - when Vojtěch's Ministry of Health "simply appropriated" the powers to close shops or restrict freedom of movement, even though there were clear barriers in the law against such arbitrariness. In the spring of 2020, I was still able to prevent this, through a court action, and the media was still able to accept my thesis that "fundamental rights are not to be played with". Half a year later, this was no longer possible - Babiš's government declared a "state of emergency forever" by abusing the Constitutional Law on the Security of the Republic and thereby "killed" the possibility of review by ordinary courts. This too was, in a way, a constitutional coup - and we also said so at the time, but it was already criticized by the media as "anti-vaxxers", later "desolates". Surely you perceive that the defense of law is and must remain impartial - then it was "against Babiš", in the current case "Babiš" or governments must be supported, in both cases regardless of sympathy or antipathy. The problem is that totality sometimes doesn't come visibly; it comes slowly, gradually - and then suddenly there it is.

Mr. Macinka is not a lawyer, but if he uttered the words "constitutional coup" in connection with Wednesday's preliminary measure of the Ú, unfortunately, he hit the mark, albeit briefly. Due to the non-hearing of the other side, which in the case of the Constitutional Court and, moreover, such a serious matter as the competence dispute between the government and the president on the state's foreign policy, is a fundamental "renunciation".