Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human Dignity in the Czech Republic

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Human Dignity in Europe

  • 135 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter deals with the concept of human dignity and its protection in the Czech legal order. It shows that human dignity is considered one of the key legal concepts both at the constitutional and statutory level. The main problems of the constitutional protection of human dignity in the Czech Republic revolve around two interrelated questions. Firstly, the question is whether human dignity is an individual right or rather a norm of programatic nature. Secondly, it is questionable whether human dignity may be limited or whether it is considered an absolute right. The authors of the chapter argue that human dignity is protected by the Czech constitutional order as a (rather narrow) individual right that may be limited and at the same time as a (broad) underlying principle of fundamental rights protection. At the statutory level, human dignity is protected by a number of statutes, most prominently by the new Civil Code and the Criminal Code.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The case law of BVerfG is by far (perhaps with the exception of ECHR; but the European Convention and the case law of the ECHR cannot be considered foreign sources in the Czech law) the most prominent foreign source of inspiration for the Czech Constitutional Court. This can be explained – on a general level – by a relative openness of the small and new constitutional systems that desired to “sit on the shoulders of giants” and thus show that it belongs to the family of European democracies. The special position of Germany and its constitutional court is connected not only to the geographical closeness of both countries but also to the fact that many opinion leaders of the Czech Constitutional Court (Klokočka, Holländer, Wagnerová) had close ties to German constitutional law. Finally, it cannot be denied that the case law of BVerfG is one of the most important sources of inspiration even at the global level.

  2. 2.

    Cf. Waldron 2012, pp. 200–222. Waldron argues that human dignity is so imprinted in legal systems that protect it, that even (1) codes of procedure or (2) division between public and private law can be understood as guarantees of human dignity. For example, the right to be heard in a code of procedure reflects the autonomy (an aspect of human dignity) of a person, as does the general private law principle of autonomy of will.

  3. 3.

    Even though the effect would probably be similar. Dogmatically, human dignity as understood by Article 1 of the Czech Charter, should however not be used separately, without connection to a particular right.

  4. 4.

    The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Judgment of 7 December 2005, no. IV. ÚS 412/04.

  5. 5.

    The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Judgment of 26 September 2013, no. III. ÚS 3333/11.

  6. 6.

    See § 25 of the judgment and the therein quoted case law.

  7. 7.

    The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Judgment of 29 February 2008, no. II. ÚS 2268/07.

  8. 8.

    For critics see Vyhnánek 2014, p. 387. But despite the lacking reasoning, the case could be considered as perhaps the most consequential application of Dürig’s “Objektformel”. It could be argued that the state violates human dignity, when it deliberately forced to commit a crime, turning the person in a mere object of its conduct.

  9. 9.

    Důvodová zpráva k občanskému zákoníku (Bill report to the Civil Code) 2011, 608. According to the bill report, the actual foundation which is included in § 3 para. 1 is not new. It also served as an inspiration, at the end of eighteenth century, for Horten’s draft of civil code which, however, failed to be included in the final draft of universal civil code of 1811 due to the political regime of absolute monarchy which rejected a list of natural human rights.

  10. 10.

    The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Judgment of 11 November 2005, no. I. ÚS 453/03.

  11. 11.

    For further notes compare Knap et al. 2004, pp. 308–320, pp. 347–370.

  12. 12.

    The Judgment of the Regional Court in Ústí nad Labem of 25 February 2011, no. 24 C 90/2006.

  13. 13.

    Compare e.g. Judgment of the Regional Court in Brno of 13 August 2012, no. 24 C 100/2009. Compare Šustek and Holčapek 2007, p. 181.

  14. 14.

    See e.g. judgment of the Regional Court in Ceske Budejovice of 1 June 2012, no. 11 C 35/2007.

  15. 15.

    The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic judgment of 27 October 2010, no. 30 Cdo 3322/2008.

  16. 16.

    The Court also held that this was the amount demanded by the plaintiff but it might have been higher had the plaintiff demanded it.

  17. 17.

    The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Judgment of 21 October 2008, no. IV. ÚS 1735/07.

  18. 18.

    Here, the Czech constitutional Court is clearly inspired by the German conception of “Ausstrahlung”.

  19. 19.

    See supra part 1.

  20. 20.

    The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Judgment of 18 August 2009, no. IV. ÚS 557/09, para. 18.

  21. 21.

    Inter alia the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Judgment of 6 March 2012, no. I. ÚS 823/11.

  22. 22.

    The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Judgment of 26 September 2013, no. III. ÚS 3333/11.

  23. 23.

    Ibid.

  24. 24.

    The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Judgment of 28 February 2008, no. I.ÚS 987/07.

  25. 25.

    Explicitly mentioned in the dissenting opinion of E. Wagnerová to the The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Judgment of 20 May 2008, no. Pl. ÚS 1/08, but it is very probable that future case law of the Czech Constitutional Court – if given the opportunity – will adopt this view.

  26. 26.

    See supra part 1.

  27. 27.

    Inter alia the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Judgments of 6 March 2012, no. I.ÚS 823/11 and of 15 March 2005, no. I.ÚS 367/03.

  28. 28.

    A different view is probably held by E. Wagnerová: cf. Wagerová 2012, pp. 282–283.

  29. 29.

    It should be noted that the judgment was drafted by E. Wagnerová. E. Wagnerová constructed Article 10 para. 1 of the Czech Charter broadly even in some other judgments (see The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Judgment of 18 August 2009, no. IV. ÚS 557/09).

  30. 30.

    Eliška Wagnerová, a former vice-president of the Czech Constitutional Court, seemed to support this view this on several occasions, most recently during a debate with Aharon Barak, held at the Czech Constitutional Court on the 18th of June 2014.

  31. 31.

    See e.g. the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Judgment of 15 March 2005, no. I.ÚS 367/03.

  32. 32.

    A similar opinion is expressed in Baroš 2012, p. 61.

References

  • Baroš J (2012) Článek 1 [Article 1]. In: Wagnerová E (ed) Listina základních práv a svobod. Komentář [The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. Commentary]. Wolters Kluwer, Praha

    Google Scholar 

  • Bělovský P (2009) Občanské právo [Civil law]. In: Bobek M, Pavel M, Vojtěch Š (eds) Komunistické právo v Československu. Kapitoly z dějin bezpráví [Communist law in Czechoslovakia. Chapters from the history of injustice]. Mezinárodní politilogický ústav. Masarykova univerzita, Brno, pp 425–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Dürig G (1956) Der Grundrechtssatz von der Menschenwürde. Archiv öffentlichen Rechts 81:117

    Google Scholar 

  • Důvodová zpráva k občanskému zákoníku [Bill report to the Civil Code]. (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gřivna T (2009) Trestní právo hmotné [Criminal law]. In: Bobek M, Molek P, Šimíček V (eds) Komunistické právo v Československu. Kapitoly z dějin bezpráví [Communist law in Czechoslovakia. Chapters from the history of injustice]. Mezinárodní politilogický ústav. Masarykova univerzita, Brno, pp 553–581

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanuš L (2013) Glosy k právní argumentaci [Comments on legal argumentation]. Masarykova univerzita, Brno

    Google Scholar 

  • Knap K, Jehlička ŠJ, Pavlík O, P.-Plecitý V (2004) Ochrana osobnosti podle občanského práva [Protection of personality under the civil law]. Linde, Praha

    Google Scholar 

  • Lata J (2007) Účel a smysl trestu [Aim and meaning of the punishment]. LexisNexis CZ, Praha

    Google Scholar 

  • Popovičová D (2009) Ochrana lidské důstojnosti osob zbavených svobody [Human dignity protection of persons restricted on their personal liberty]. Masarykova univerzita, Brno

    Google Scholar 

  • Repík B (2002) Evropská úmluva o lidských právech a trestní právo [European convention on human rights and criminal law]. Orac, Praha

    Google Scholar 

  • Šámal P (2012) Trestní zákoník: komentář [Criminal code: commentary]. C.H. Beck, Praha

    Google Scholar 

  • Šimíček V (2010) Článek 9 [Article 9]. In: Šimíček V (ed) Ústava České republiky. Komentář [Constitution of the Czech Republic. Commentary]. Linde, Praha, pp 149–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Šimíček V (2012) Preambule [Preamble]. In: Wagnerová E, Šimíček V, Langášek T, Pospíšil I (eds) Listina základních práv a svobod. Komentář [Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. Commentary]. Wolters Kluwer, Praha, pp 48–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Šustek P, Holčapek T (2007) Informovaný souhlas: teorie a praxe informovaného souhlasu ve zdravotnictví [Informed consent: theory and practice of informed consent in health care]. ASPI, Praha

    Google Scholar 

  • Těšínová J, Žďárek R (2011) Medicínské právo [Medical law]. C.H. Beck, Praha

    Google Scholar 

  • Vyhnánek L (2014) Základní práva [Fundamental rights]. In: Antoš M, Kosař D, Kühn Z, Vyhnánek L (eds) Ústavní právo: Casebook. Wolters Kluwer, Praha, pp 348–607

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagnerová E (2012) Článek 10 [Article 10]. In: Wagnerová E, Šimíček V, Langášek T, Pospíšil I (eds) Listina základních práv a svobod. Komentář [The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. Commentary]. Wolters Kluwer, Praha, pp 290–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J (2012) How law protects dignity. Camb Law J 71:200

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This contribution represents an outcome of the project Analýza judikatury v oblasti zdravotnického práva [Analysis of case law in the area of medical law], reg. number MUNI/A/0837/2013.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Constitutional Law and Political Science/Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Veveri 70, 61180, Brno, Czech Republic

    Jaroslav Benák & Ladislav Vyhnánek

  2. Attorney at Law, Brno, Czech Republic

    David Zahumenský

Authors
  1. Jaroslav Benák
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ladislav Vyhnánek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Zahumenský
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaroslav Benák .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Paolo Becchi

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Klaus Mathis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Benák, J., Vyhnánek, L., Zahumenský, D. (2017). Human Dignity in the Czech Republic. In: Becchi, P., Mathis, K. (eds) Handbook of Human Dignity in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27830-8_9-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27830-8_9-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27830-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27830-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Law and CriminologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation