After the accession of several Central and Eastern European countries to the European Union in 2004, new challenges arose for their highest judicial institutions to define and shape the relationship between the national and European legal order. This paper assesses the first decade of the effort of the Slovak Constitutional Court (SCC) in interpreting the relationship between domestic and EU law via applying the concept of constitutional pluralism which presumes a specific relationship between the legal orders characterized by their heterarchical structure, mutual interaction and cooperation rather than of a hierarchical, monistic structure, governed by clash over dominance. Answering the research question how the SCC has positioned itself vis-à-vis the constitutional monism v. pluralism dilemma can offer an insight on the general relationship between domestic and EU law in Slovakia. By analysing statutory law, selected judgments and reviewing secondary literature, the paper argues that the SCC seems to have chosen the monistic, hierarchical approach to the relationship, having rejected constitutional pluralism. At the same time, this position is not articulated clearly enough due to the veil of secrecy that to some extent still prevails over the SCC’s doctrinal attitudes to EU law. The findings of the paper, which combines conceptual analysis of constitutional pluralism with review of relevant legal provisions and case law, demonstrate the need for a more active and straightforward approach of the SCC when dealing with the challenges of EU law., Max Steuer., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy
Štúdia skúma spôsoby zdôvodňovania rozhodnutí slovenských súdov v prípadoch kolízie dvoch základných práv, slobody prejavu a osobnostných práv. Prostredníctvom obsahovej analýzy vybraných rozhodnutí slovenských súdov prevažne z rokov 2010–2013 sme rozobrali používanie (1) ontologických, tj. filozofických a teoretických zdôvodnení v prospech slobody prejavu, (2) uplatnenie princípu proporcionality a (3) odkazovanie na predpisy o ľudských právach, konkrétne na Ústavu SR a Európsky dohovor
o ľudských právach.Naše zistenia naznačujú, že v závislosti od spôsobu zdôvodňovania existujú dva odlišné prístupy súdov k rozhodovaniu pri konflikte týchto dvoch práv.Rozdiely medzi nimi sa najviac ukazujú pri
používaní druhého a tretieho spôsobu zdôvodnenia, keďže na skúmanej vzorke šesťdesiatich rozhodnutí sme zistili, že súdy, ktoré sa odvolávajú na tieto dve skupiny argumentov, častejšie rozhodnú v prospech slobody prejavu. Súvislosť medzi spôsobom zdôvodnenia a verdiktom rozhodnutia pri používaní ontologického zdôvodňovania je menej výrazná, paradoxne napriek tomu, že pomáha zdôrazniť dôležitosť práva na slobodu prejavu.Na záver naša štúdia poukazuje na možnosti ďalšieho výskumu týkajúceho sa vplyvu rozličných druhov zdôvodnenia na postavenie a význam práva na slobodu prejavu v Slovenskej republike. and This study examines how Slovak courts justify their decisions in the cases of conflicts of the two basic rights: freedom of speech and personal rights.Via content analysis of sixty verdicts issued by courts in 2010–2013, we analysed (1) the frequency of ontological argumentation, i.e. philosophical
and theoretical justifications of free speech, (2) application of the principle of proportionality and (3) reference to human rights provisions, namely the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.Our findings suggest that, depending on the method of reasoning, there are two different approaches of the courts to the conflicts between these two rights. The key difference lies in the application of the second and third type of justification, because the examination of our samples indicates that the courts, which use these two
arguments, are more often inclined to decide in favour of the free speech. The relationship between the type of justification and the verdict of the court by using the ontological justification is less pronounced, although, paradoxically, it helps to stress the importance of the right to free speech. In conclusion, our study outlines the possibilities of further research concerning the influence of the different forms of justifications on the position and strength of freedom of speech in Slovakia.