Failure to Comprehensively Assess Case Merits: A Violation of the Right to Judicial Protection?

The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court’s reversal was based on an arbitrary, unconstitutional interpretation of the law, a failure to adhere to its own settled precedents, and a refusal to comprehensively evaluate the specific merits of the case.

The Constitutional Court’s Ruling

The Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal, clarifying the boundaries of judicial protection. The Court emphasized that the right to judicial protection is procedural in nature and does not guarantee a specific substantive outcome.

Key takeaways from the majority opinion:

• Substantive Divergence: The Supreme Court is entitled to reach different substantive legal conclusions than lower courts.
• Rational Basis: A decision is not unconstitutional merely because the court’s reasoning differs from that of the petitioner or the lower instances.
• Sufficiency of Argument: The critical factor is whether the Supreme Court effectively addressed all relevant arguments raised during the proceedings.

The majority's reasoning is detailed in the finding Case No. I. ÚS 1815/25, issued on January 15, 2026.

The Dissenting Opinion: A Call for Consistency

The ruling was not unanimous. A dissenting judge argued that the petition should have been granted, highlighting the heightened responsibility of supreme jurisdictions.

The dissent focused on several critical points regarding judicial certainty:

• The Role of Precedent: Only properly reasoned and consistent decisions from supreme courts limit judicial arbitrariness and ensure that similar cases are decided predictably.
• Quality of Reasoning: When the Supreme Court reverses a lower court's decision on the merits while simultaneously acting to unify judicial practice, the standard for "quality reasoning" must be higher. The dissent argued the Court failed to address the specific logic used by the lower instances.
• Methodological Uncertainty: The dissenting judge noted that the Supreme Court failed to follow its own established rules—specifically, it did not determine whether the appellate court’s initial reasoning was "manifestly disproportionate."

Implications for Labor Law

According to the dissent, this decision fails to fulfill the Supreme Court's role as a unifier of case law. Instead, it introduces greater uncertainty into labor disputes—a socially sensitive area. By blurring the methodological approaches used to evaluate the termination of employment, the ruling may lead to further ambiguity in future litigation.

The dissenting view concluded that the Constitutional Court should have quashed the decision, providing the Supreme Court with the opportunity to remedy these inconsistencies.

Note: This article was localized from the Czech original via AI.‍