The paper outlines Czech constitutional law and the development of emergency law. Initially, the legislature did not expect emergencies to occur, perhaps due to the idealistic optimism associated with the general atmosphere of the collapse of the Eastern Bloc in 1989 and the “End of History” thesis. As a result, emergencies were not regulated by Czech law in the 1990s. This changed after the great floods at the end of the 1990s, when “history returned,” and the need for some special rules for emergencies became clear. The first decades of this century showed that Czech emergency law worked well for short-term natural disasters. The game-changer came in 2020, with the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for a long-term state of emergency. It soon became clear that the rules that worked for floods and other disasters did not work for long-term global pandemics. In other words, the legal system was not prepared for a situation in which emergencies were the rule rather than the exception. Legislators were unable to prepare a long-term legislative response to fill this gap. The memory of COVID-19 is fading fast, and there are no plans to reform the relevant legislation. Accordingly, any new pandemic or similar event will lead to the same problems that the Czech legal system had to deal with from 2020 to 2022.

The Article deals with the actual functioning of the judicial power and the limits of its independence facing an illiberal or authoritarian state. The Article offers a skeptical analysis of the past and especially of the judiciary’s future in Central Europe, with a primary focus on Czechia and Slovakia. After a brief excursion into the times before the installment of communist regimes in the late 1940s, attention shifts to the development of the judiciary during the three decades after the fall of communist rule. In this context, the Article deals with different models of administration of the judiciary and shows how they can function in normal democracy and under the conditions of emerging authoritarianism. It also characterizes different perspectives on the judiciary in common law and continental law and posits different capacities of judges to resist authoritarians in various legal cultures. Finally, it sketches future prospects and attempts to define the typology of judiciary models in authoritarian and totalitarian states.

After the EU Enlargement of 2004, the law courts of the new Member States now fulfill a twofold role of applying both national and European law. The application of European law also entails the duty of judges to construe their own domestic law as close as possible with EU law, and, if that is not possible, the duty arises to set aside the domestic law found to be incompatible with European law. In consequence, developments in the next decade will test judges’ capacity for properly applying European law and this process will inevitably present a serious challenge to the Central European judicial systems. While evaluations can first be made no sooner than a few years after the EU Enlargement, there are important indications that can suggest the probable outcome of that challenge. This article briefly outlines the application of European law in those countries prior to EU Enlargement and then deals with the important factors which are likely to influence its future application in the new Member States.

Given far-reaching changes in the legal systems of East Central Europe since the mid-1990s, one might expect administrative court judges to have modified the way in which they decide cases, in particular by embracing less formalistic adjudication strategies. Relying on an original dataset of over one thousand business-related cases from the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, this article shows that – despite some variation across countries and time – judges have largely failed to respond to the incentives contained in the new constitutional frameworks. They continue to adopt the most-locally-applicable-rule approach and are reluctant to apply general principles of law or to rely on Dworkinian ‘policies’ in deciding hard cases. The analysis links these weak institutional effects to the role of constitutional courts, case overload and educational legacies.

History of the Czech presidency – Constitutional status of the President – Personal powers and powers subject to countersignature by the Premier – Presidency of V. Havel and V. Klaus – Emerging constitutional conventions – Appointment of judges – Resignation of Ministers and Appointment of Premier – Legislative veto – Moderation of the constitutional system rather than implementation of a political programme – Importance of the political context – Parliamentarianism with a relatively influential President.

Selection and nomination of constitutional justices – American model of judicial review in post-communist countries – Tensions between parliamentary supremacy and excessive activism of Constitutional Courts – Possibility of reappointment and the independence of justices – Lack of cooperation between President and Senate in the Czech Republic – Politicization of judicial nomination and democracy.