Kde končí pouhé reflexy? Soudní ochrana na hranici mezi zájmy
| Title in English | Where Do Mere Reflexes End? Judicial Protection on The Boundary of Interests |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Year of publication | 2024 |
| Type | Appeared in Conference without Proceedings |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Description | In his 1937 publication, Jiří Hoetzel stated that the protection of legality is an perpetrated in the public interest. Such activity "may in fact be to the benefit of the citizens (parties), but these are mere reflexes, not the intended purpose of oversight." Almost 85 years later, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court, in its judgment in re Žaves, explicitly denied Heotzel's thesis, stating that adherence to its premises was contrary to the rule of law. Soon afterwards, the Supreme Administrative Court issued its judgment in re Klimatická žaloba, in which it – in the general – accepted the procedural standing of applicants who were engaged in strategic litigation in the public interest. This paper sees the two judgments as opposite manifestations of the same phenomenon – judicial protection in a situation of blurred boundaries between private and public interests, where the traditionally perceived side effects ("mere reflexes") of the protection of one interest on the other become relevant (both procedurally and substantively). This paper will critically analyse both cases, evaluate and describe their common features in the light of what has been outlined and use this evaluation as a basis for further de lege ferenda and de lege lata considerations on the protection of private and public interests in judicial review. |
| Related projects: |