O ROZHODOVANÍ POLITICKÝCH OTÁZOK ÚSTAVNÝM SÚDOM

This article deals with constitutional courts when an object of judicial review is a political question. It presents arguments, for and against judicial review in such cases, which are divided into three sections – the competency issue, the legitimacy issue and the issue of arbitrariness. In the first section, there is a dispute whether deciding political questions breaches separation of powers, or rather fulfils the principle of checks and balances. In the second section is raised a question about legitimacy – does judicial review break the majority rule, or can we refer to citizens acceptance of constitutional standards. In the third section, the author think about vagueness of constitutional text and its consequences for judicial review – are judges’ considerations really arbitrary, or they are bound by a line of previous decisions and by necessity to find legal, not political answers. The author points to the fact case, which at first looks like a political question, may have potential to affect constitutional values and principles. Due to this fact, the author tries to outline a border between „political“ and „legal“ consideration, while she uses examples from existing decisions of constitutional court. The article is aimed to show that constitutional courts, in some point of view, ought to decide also political questions and for that reason is necessary to create clear rules and procedures.