Publication details
Revival of a Cancelled Legal Regulation in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia and in Slovakia
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2019 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Law and State |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Web | Open access časopisu |
| Keywords | Constitution; cancellation of the legal regulation; revival of the legal regulation; Constitutional Court; law-making; revival of legal regulations. |
| Description | 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. |