Re: Court deliberating over motion on EU treaty, Flash News, January 19, 2006
The decision of the parliament is a political one, the court's is a legal one. The former may be easier to arrive at than the latter, and vice-versa, depending on the case at hand.
It is difficult to predict what would happen if France and Holland had voted 'yes'. They didn't.
There will probably be a revival of the treaty, where parts of it regarding the functioning of the institutions will be introduced again and things such as human rights, that for some have too much of a whiff of a real kind of constitution, will be left out. But it will take some years to get to that point.
If the treaty does conflict with, for example, the Slovak Constitution, then the Supreme Court of Slovakia may decide to take up the case. I am no lawyer or legal expert, but that at least seems logical and correct to me. Whether something is called this or that does not mean that the Supreme Court should be left in the dark.
If a case is substantial enough, it should be heard at the highest possible level, no matter what.
30. Jan 2006 at 0:00