Revival of a Cancelled Legal Regulation in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia and in Slovakia

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216224%3A14220%2F19%3A00113690" target="_blank" >RIV/00216224:14220/19:00113690 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://km.kazguu.kz/uploads/files/4%20%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F%20-%20Zden%C4%9Bk%20Koudelka%20(Czech%20Republic%2C%20Brno)%2C%20Ale%C5%A1%20V%C3%A1%C5%88a%20(Czech%20Republic%2C%20Karlovy%20Vary).pdf" target="_blank" >http://km.kazguu.kz/uploads/files/4%20%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C%D1%8F%20-%20Zden%C4%9Bk%20Koudelka%20(Czech%20Republic%2C%20Brno)%2C%20Ale%C5%A1%20V%C3%A1%C5%88a%20(Czech%20Republic%2C%20Karlovy%20Vary).pdf</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Revival of a Cancelled Legal Regulation in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia and in Slovakia

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The text deals with the revival of a legal regulation that was cancelled by a legal regulation that was subsequently cancelled by the Constitutional Court. It points out to the divided approach to the solution. The text results from the principles that unless the law explicitly stipulates otherwise, the cancelled legal regulation is not revived by cancelling the regulation that had cancelled it. The basic method used in the article is a comparison between the Czech Republic (Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia) and the Slovak Republic. The timeliness of the article is given by the fact that there is no uniform opinion on the solution of the problem and different solutions are adopted in individual cases. This undermines and weakens the principle of legal certainty. The revival of a cancelled legal regulation is possible, if the constitution and the law explicitly stipulate so, which is not the case of the legal system in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. The cancelation effects of a judgment of the constitutional court are for the future, not the past, otherwise it would be unconstitutional retroactivity. In Slovakia, the issue is solved by a legal directive regulating differently the consequences of derogation of a legal regulation (no revival) and its mere amendments or completions (revival). Unless the positive law states otherwise, there is no reason to adopt a different attitude to the consequences of the cancelation of a legal regulation by a legislator or by the constitutional court. Yet, it must be reminded that the constitutional court is not a positive law-maker and the revival of a legal regulation alone represents law-making.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Revival of a Cancelled Legal Regulation in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia and in Slovakia

Popis výsledku anglicky

The text deals with the revival of a legal regulation that was cancelled by a legal regulation that was subsequently cancelled by the Constitutional Court. It points out to the divided approach to the solution. The text results from the principles that unless the law explicitly stipulates otherwise, the cancelled legal regulation is not revived by cancelling the regulation that had cancelled it. The basic method used in the article is a comparison between the Czech Republic (Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia) and the Slovak Republic. The timeliness of the article is given by the fact that there is no uniform opinion on the solution of the problem and different solutions are adopted in individual cases. This undermines and weakens the principle of legal certainty. The revival of a cancelled legal regulation is possible, if the constitution and the law explicitly stipulate so, which is not the case of the legal system in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. The cancelation effects of a judgment of the constitutional court are for the future, not the past, otherwise it would be unconstitutional retroactivity. In Slovakia, the issue is solved by a legal directive regulating differently the consequences of derogation of a legal regulation (no revival) and its mere amendments or completions (revival). Unless the positive law states otherwise, there is no reason to adopt a different attitude to the consequences of the cancelation of a legal regulation by a legislator or by the constitutional court. Yet, it must be reminded that the constitutional court is not a positive law-maker and the revival of a legal regulation alone represents law-making.

Druh

J_ost - Ostatní články v recenzovaných periodicích

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2019

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Law and State

ISSN

2307-521X

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

2019

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

4

Stát vydavatele periodika

KZ - Republika Kazachstán

Počet stran výsledku

15

Strana od-do

50-64

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—