Publication details
Ústavní soud, fakta a vědecké poznání
| Title in English | Constitutional Court, facts and science |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Year of publication | 2024 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Právník |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Web | http://www.ilaw.cas.cz/upload/web/files/pravnik/issues/2024/8/1_Vyhnanek_773-790_8_2024.pdf |
| Keywords | constitutional court; facts; scientific knowledge; COVID-19; climate; smoking ban; semiprocedural review |
| Attached files | |
| Description | The article deals with a problem that constitutional courts (including the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic) face more and more often – namely that constitutional courts are confronted with complex empirical questions. This concerns primarily a review of legislative acts (e.g. the proportionality test), but also a review of legislative inaction (e.g. in relation to climate actions). The resolution of these issues is a multifaceted one. At a basic level, constitutional courts (or specifically the Czech one) should adopt a disciplined and rigorous approach to empirical questions. To do so, they can, of course, make effective use of the procedural means at their disposal (evidence, examination of experts, oral hearings). However, even adopting an appropriate solution at the basic level of the approach to the basic questions does not solve all the problems. Additional issues may arise, for example, in the context of seeking answers to genuinely complex empirical questions. Although some degree of uncertainty is always present, in some situation, the issue of epistemological uncertainty plays a key role. The article mentions the contexts of the COVID-19 pandemic and climate lawsuits as examples. These suggest that some form of semi-procedural review is the appropriate response. In its framework, the courts examine how the state (or its particular bodies) deals with facts and scientific knowledge. The courts do not enforce their own empirical assessment, but at the same time they ensure that the state’s discretion does not exceed what is necessary in the face of empirical uncertainty. |
| Related projects: |