Expert: President Pavel Is on the Edge of the Constitution – Refusal to Appoint Turek Must Have a Legal Basis
- Filip Turek
- Jan 8
- 2 min read
President Petr Pavel’s decision not to appoint Motorists MP Filip Turek as Minister of the Environment has opened a dispute over the limits of presidential powers. Party chairman Petr Macinka speaks of a constitutional foul and questions the impartiality of the Constitutional Court, which the Castle has rejected as unacceptable. Constitutional lawyer Ondřej Preuss, in an interview with Česká justice, warns that the president is operating “on the edge” of his role in this situation and explains when the refusal to appoint a minister must be based on legal rather than merely political grounds, and what role the direct election of the head of state plays in similar disputes.
Did President Petr Pavel, by refusing to appoint Filip Turek, cross the boundaries set for him by the Constitution, or is he still acting within his powers?
This depends on how we perceive the role of the president in our system. Most experts lean toward a stabilizing, moderating, and representative role for the president in a parliamentary system. President Pavel is therefore operating on the edge.
However, it is necessary to unequivocally reject the thesis that the president has been preparing the ground for this by selecting Constitutional Court judges. Nothing indicates that this is the case.
Can the president assess a proposed minister based on their views, past statements, or political controversiality, or from a constitutional perspective should he examine only formal prerequisites?
The president can undoubtedly assess proposed individuals from all possible angles. The other question is to what extent he can base a decision to reject a nomination on political arguments. In my view, there must be a legal reason for refusing the appointment, not merely political disagreement. However, a legal reason may likely also include the “danger” embodied by a given candidate to the democratic constitutional order and the security of the republic—for example, if the person were an agent of a foreign state or of organized crime.
Does the fact that the president in the Czech Republic is elected directly play a role in such disputes? Has direct election strengthened the presidential mandate to such an extent that it affects the interpretation of his powers vis-à-vis the government?
Legally, very little; politically, probably quite significantly.
If a similar situation were to occur more frequently, is there a risk that the Czech Republic could shift toward a semi-presidential model without changing the Constitution?
Yes, this is a possible consideration. However, it would have to be a long-term process and would depend primarily on the actions of other actors, especially the prime minister.
Source: Česká justice
