SBORNÍK 66 SVOČ 2016

47 / 610

45
sources of law, including violations of property rights.62 Generally and pro futuro,
the most important was the statement, according to which ‘Based on the principle of
primacy of EU law, all public bodies, not only general courts, are obliged ex officio not to
use domestic law, which in their opinion contradicts EU law, while general courts also
have the possibility to verify such legal opinion by submitting a preliminary question to
the Court of Justice of the European Union according to Article 267 of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union. Accordingly, […] general courts and all public
bodies are obliged to exclude the application of such national law ex offo.’63
It must be noted that the collocation ‘all public bodies’ means also the SCC itself.
Consequently, via this decision, the SCC ‘fully approved the interpretation of the
primacy of community law in the understanding of the ECJ, i.e. the primacy of EU
law before any norm of national law, including the Constitution.’64 This is confirmed
by the President of the Constitutional Court (in office until 2019) when she argues
that the SCC has committed itself to the doctrine of primacy of EU law, without
any reservations.65 In other words, it is likely to have chosen European constitutional
monism from the three theoretical positions,66 and acknowledged the hierarchical
character of the relationship between national and EU law. This result went contrary
to many expectations according to which the SCC or other Central European CCs,
preserve the dominance of national law in limited ways, the ‘material core’ of the
constitution, etc.67 One question that remains open is whether this ruling was enough
for establishing a new doctrine to which the Court will stick in other difficult cases of
potential conflicts between national and EU law.
5. What lies beneath: the SCC’s choice and its implications
It is largely clear at this point that the SCC has refused to apply the concept of
constitutional pluralism to the relationship between Slovak and EU law. However,
two more polemic questions remain. The first concerns the causes of this outcome.
Why has the SCC declared the virtually unconditional primacy of acts of primary
EU law, even over its own judgments and in this way distinguish itself from other
constitutional courts in the region? What factors could be at play here? The second
relates to the impact of the SCC’s decision. Does it even matter for the practical, day-
to-day relations between Slovakia and the EU, and/or for the protection of human
rights of people subject to jurisdiction of Slovak state and public institutions? If so, is
the effect likely to be positive or negative? Of course, this latter question, in contrast to
62 Ruling PL. ÚS 3/09, (accessed 12-05-2015).
63 Ibid.
64 Ľalík, Tomáš: Ústavnoprávna povaha Európskej únie. In: Cibulka, Ľubor (et al.): Ústavné právo
Slovenskej republiky (štátoveda). Bratislava: Praf UK, 2013, pp. 250-252.
65 Macejková, Iveta: Právo Európskej únie v judikatúre Ústavného súdu Slovenskej republiky. In: Bárány,
Eduard (ed.): Ako právo reaguje na novoty. Bratislava: VEDA, 2015, pp. 208-213.
66 See Section 2.2 above.
67 E.g. Jánošíková, Martina, op. cit. (No. 43); Piqani, Darinka, op. cit. (No. 37).