References
- Balbiino AS v Põllumajandusminister and Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus [2009], ECJ C-560/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:341, 4.6.2009.
- Bezpečnostní softwarová asociace-Svaz softwarové ochrany v. Ministerstvo kultury 82010], ECJ C-393/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:816, 22.12.2010.
- Bílková, J. (2013), ‘K temporálním dopadům rozsudku Evropského soudního dvora ve věci C-161/06 aneb opět Skoma-Lux a odpovědnost za škodu způsobenou při výkonu veřejné moci,’ Jurisprudence, no. 3, pp. 9–12.
- Bobek, M. (2011), ‘The multilingualism of the European Union law and the national courts: beyond the textbooks,’ in A. Kjaer, A. Lise & S. Adamo (eds.) Linguistic Diversity and European Democracy, Surrey: Ashgate, pp. 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S157401961400104710.1017/S1574019614001047
- Bobek, M. (2014), ‘Landtová, Holubec, and the problem of an uncooperative court: implications for the preliminary rulings procedure (April 29, 2014),’ European Constitutional Law Review, vol. 10, pp. 54–89.
- Budinska, B. & Vikarska, Z. (2017), ‘Judicial dialogue after Taricco II: who has the last word, in the end?’ EU Law Analysis, 7 December. Retrieved from http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2017/12/criminal-law-human-rights-and.html [accessed Jun 2019]
- CJEU (2019), Annual Report 2018, Luxembourg: Court of Justice of the European Union / Communications Directorate. Retrieved from https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-04/ra_pan_2018_en.pdf [accessed 15 Jun 2019]
- Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (2006), Cukerné kvóty, Judgement of the Constitutional Court, Pl. ÚS 50/04, ECLI:CZ:US:2006: Pl.ÚS.50.04.
- Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (2009), Pfizer, Judgement of the Constitutional Court, II. ÚS 1009/08, ECLI:CZ:US:2009:2.US.1009.08.2.
- Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (2012), Holubec, Judgement ÚS 5/12, 31.1.2012.
- Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (2014), Judgement of the Constitutional Court, II. ÚS 1248/13 ECLI:CZ:US:2014:2.US.1248.13.1.
- Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic (2018), Československá obchodní banka, II. ÚS 3432/17, ECLI:CZ:US:2018:2.US.3432.17.1.
- Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties, OJ L 73, 15.3.1976.
- Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
- Council Regulation (EC) no. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 12, 16.1.2001.
- Council Regulation (EC) no. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) no. 1347/2000, OJ L 338, 23.12.2003.
- Craig, P. & de Búrca, G. (2015), EU Law: Text, Cases and Materials, Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198714927.001.000110.1093/he/9780198714927.001.0001
- Criminal proceedings against Ivo Taricco and Others [2015], ECJ C-105/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:555, 8.9.2015.
- Criminal proceedings against Kenny Roland Lyckeslog [2002], ECJ C-99/00, ECLI:EU:C:2002:329, 4.6.2002.
- Criminal Proceedings against M.A.S. and M.B. [2017], ECJ C-42/17, ECLI:EU:C:2017:936, 5.12.2017.
- DAR Duale Abfallwirtschaft und Verwertung Ruhrgebiet [2010], ECJ C-299/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:299, 25.5.2010.
- Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 299, 4.11.2003.
- Evas, T. (2016), Judicial Application of European Union Law in post-Communist Countries: The Cases of Estonia and Latvia, London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/978131559075210.4324/9781315590752
- Flaminio Costa v. E.N.E.L. [1964], ECJ C-6/64, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66, 15.7.1964.
- Forejtová, M. (2017), ‘Existují ještě otazníky nad odměnami za pracovní pohotovost zaměstnanců dle judikatury Soudního dvora EU?’ Právní proctor, 5 December. Retrieved from https://www.pravniprostor.cz/clanky/pracovni-pravo/dalsiotazniky-kolem-odmen-za-pracovni-pohotovost-zamestnancu-dle-judikatury-soudniho-dvora-eu [accessed 15 Jun 2019]
- Georgiev, J. (2018), ‘The constitutional review of the OMT programme – the German case,’ in N. Šišková (ed.) The European Union – What is Next? Köln: Wolters Kluwer, pp. 165–176.
- Grmelová, N. (2014), ‘Nepoložení předběžné otázky Soudnímu dvoru Evropské unie jako porušení práva na spravedlivý process,’ Mezinárodní vztahy, no. 4, pp. 102–120.
- Hamuľák, O. (2011), ‘The Czech Constitutional Court and the question of an active use of the preliminary ruling procedure,’ in R. Somssich (ed.) Central and Eastern European Countries after and before the Accession, Volume 2. Budapest: ELTE, pp. 121–128.
- Hamuľák, O. (2014), ‘The unbearable lightness of being guardian of the Constitution (revolt and revolution dilemma in the approach of Czech Constitutional Court vis-à-vis EU and supranational legal order),’ European Studies: The Review of European Law, Economics and Politics, vol. 1, pp. 103–112.
- Hamuľák, O. (2015), ‘Lessons from the “constitutional mythology” or how to reconcile the concepts of state with European integration,’ DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1515/danb-2015-000510.1515/danb-2015-0005
- Hamuľák, O.; Kopal, D. & Kerikmäe, T. (2016), ‘Walking a tightrope – looking back on risky position of German Federal Constitutional Court in OMT preliminary question,’ European Studies: The Review of European Law, economics and Politics, vol. 3, pp. 115–141.
- Hypoteční banka a.s. v. Udo Mike Lindner [2011], ECJ C-327/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:745, 17.11.2011.
- Jan Vorel v. Nemocnice Český Krumlov [2007], ECJ C-437/05, ECLI:EU:C:2007:23.
- Jaremba, U. (2014), National Judges as EU Law Judges: The Polish Civil Law System, Leiden-Boson: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/978900426147110.1163/9789004261471
- João Filipe Ferreira da Silva e Brito and Others v Estado português [2015], ECJ C-160/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:565, 9.9.2015.
- Komárek, J. (2012), ‘Czech constitutional court playing with matches: the Czech constitutional court declares a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU ultra vires; Judgment of 31 January 2012, Pl. ÚS 5/12, Slovak Pensions XVII,’ European Constitutional Law Review, no. 8, pp. 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019612000193
- Král, R. (2012), ‘Otazníky nad posledním nálezem Ústavního soudu ČR týkajícího se tzv. slovenských důchodů,’ Jurisprudence, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 28–33.
- Kustra, A. (2013), ‘The first preliminary questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union referred by Italian Corte Costituzionale, Spanish Tribunal Constitucional, and French Conseil Constitutionnel,’ Comparative Law Review, vol. 16, pp. 159–182. https://doi.org/10.12775/CLR.2013.021
- Kustra-Rogatka, A. (2019), ‘The Kelsenian model of constitutional review in times of European integration – reconsidering the basic features,’ International and Comparative Law Review, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7–37. https://doi.org/10.2478/iclr-2019-000110.2478/iclr-2019-0001
- Malenovský, J. (2016), ‘Ambivalentní komunikace a spolupráce Soudního dvora EU a ústavních soudů jejích členských států,’ in V. Göttinger (ed.) Book of Proceedings from International Conference European Constitutionalism in the Context of Judicial Dialogue, Brno: Ústavní soud, pp. 66–73.
- Malenovský, J. (2019), ‘Protichůdné zájmy v řízení o předběžné otázce a jejich důsledky,’ Právní rozhledy, no. 6, pp. 191–197.
- Marián Baláž [2013], ECJ C-60/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:733, 14.11.2013.
- Marie Landtová v. Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení [2011], ECJ C-399/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:415, 22.6.2011.
- Milan Kyrian against Celní úřad Tábor [2010], ECJ C-233/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:11, 14.1.2010.
- Ministry of Finance (2016), Soustava soudů, Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic. Retrieved from https://www.psfv.cz/cs/reseni-sporu/soudni-rizeni/soustava-soudu [accessed 15 Jun 2019]
- Navrátilová, M. (2008), ‘The preliminary ruling before the constitutional courts,’ in V. Týč (ed.) International and European Dimension of Law Applied by Institutions of Member States, Brno: Masaryk University, pp. 695–705.
- Nordsee Deutsche Hochseefischerei GmbH v. Reederei Mond Hochseefischerei Nordstern AG & Co. KG and Reederei Friedrich Busse Hochseefischerei Nordstern AG & Co. KG. [1982], ECJ C-102/81, ECLI:EU:C:1982:107, 23.3.1982.
- NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration [1963], ECJ C-26/62, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1, 5.2.1963.
- OMT – Programme of the ECB (EZB) [2016], BvR 2728/13, 21.6.2016.
- OSA [2007], ECJ C-282/06, ECLI:EU:C:2007:114, 26.2.2007.
- Peter Gauweiler and Others v. Deutscher Bundestag [2015], ECJ C-62/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:400, 16.6.2015.
- Piccirilli, G. (2018), ‘‘The ‘Taricco Saga’: The Italian Constitutional Court continues its European journey: Italian Constitutional Court, Order of 23 November 2016 no. 24/2017; Judgment of 10 April 2018 no. 115/2018 ECJ 8 September 2015, Case C-105/14, Ivo Taricco and Others; 5 December 2017, Case C-42/17, M.A.S. and M.B.,’ European Constitutional Law Review, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 814–833. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019618000433
- Regulation (EU) no. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 351, 20.12.2012.
- Reisebüro Bühler [2007], ECJ C-126/07, ECLI:EU:C:2007:477, 8.8.2007.
- RLRE Tellmer Property sro v. Finanční ředitelství v Ústí nad Labem [2009], ECJ C-572/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:365, 11.6.2009.
- Schermers, H. & Waelbroeck, D. (2001), Judicial Protection in the European Union, The Hague, London & New York: Kluwer Law International.
- Sehnálek, D. & Týč, V.et al. (2016), Soudní dvůr EU a výklad práva Evropské unie, Brno: Masarykova univerzita, Právnická fakulta.
- Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.
- Skoma-Lux sro v. Celní ředitelství Olomouc [2007], ECJ C-161/06, ECLI:EU:C:2007:773, 11.12.2007.
- Skoma-Lux s. r. o. v. Celní ředitelství Olomouc [2010], ECJ C-339/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:781, 16.12.2010.
- Špottová, K. (2016), Sága slovenských důchodů z pohledu konceptu evropeizace, Rigorous thesis, Brno: Masaryk University.
- Stehlík, V. (2011), ‘The obligatory preliminary ruling procedure and its enforcement in the Czech and Slovak legal order,’ UWM Law Review, no. 3, pp. 6–25.
- Stehlík, V. (2019a), ‘Constitutional review and the preliminary ruling procedure: Commentary on the CCB decision of the Czech Constitutional Court,’ Czech Yearbook of International Law, vol. 10, pp. 117–129.
- Stehlík, V. (2019b), ‘Ohlédnutí se (nejen) za řízením o předběžné otázce v prvních 15 letech členství České republiky v Evropské unii,’ in N. Rozehnalová et al. (eds.) In varietate concordia: soubor vědeckých statí k poctě prof. Vladimíra Týče, Brno: Masaryk University, pp. 347–366.
- Stehlík, V. & Hamuľák, O.et al. (2014), Unijní právo před českými soudy, Praha: Leges.
- Telefónica O2 Czech Republic a.s. v. Czech On Line a.s. [2007], ECJ C-64/06 ECLI:EU:C:2007:348, 14.6.2007.
- Tomášek, M. & Týč, V.et al. (2013), Právo Evropské unie, Praha: Leges.
- Toshiba Corporation and other v. Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže [2012], ECJ C-17/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:72, 14.2.2012.
- Wiener S.I. GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Emmerich [1997], ECJ C-338/95, ECLI:EU:C:1997:352, 20.11.1997.
- Wolf Naturprodukte GmbH v. SEWAR spol. s r. o. [2012], ECJ C-514/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:367, 21.6.2012.
- Ynos kft v. János Varga [2006], ECR I-371, C-302/04, 10.1.2006.
- Zemánek, J. (2016) ‘České ústavní soudnictví v evropském ústavním prostoru,’ in V. Göttinger (ed.) Book of Proceedings from International Conference European Constitutionalism in the Context of Judicial Dialogue, Brno: Ústavní soud, pp. 88–99.
- Žondra, M. (2010), ‘Reference to preliminary rulings lodged by Czech courts, 2004–2009,’ in Czech Yearbook of International Law, vol. 1, pp. 269–299.