STATEMENT BY VÁCLAV KLAUS: The provisional measure issued by the Constitutional Court, just a day and a half after the President of the Republic filed a jurisdictional lawsuit regarding his participation in the upcoming NATO summit in Ankara, is evidence of the decline of political and legal culture in our country due to its purposefulness and blatant political activism.

The Constitutional Court has been drawn into an open political conflict without resistance. It was willing to disregard the relatively clear wording of the constitution regarding the separation of powers among constitutional institutions. It is attempting to assign tasks to the government and to assume decision-making authority on matters that are purely executive, such as the composition of delegations and technical issues related to their activities abroad. It has used the unprecedented institution of a provisional measure in a dispute between state institutions. All of this suggests that we are dealing with an openly activist body that is completely unrestrained in its pursuit of power. It is not afraid to exceed its authority. Concepts such as self-restraint, political impartiality, professional correctness, and the reputation of the institution are completely secondary to it.

In the matter itself, the issue is not primarily the President's participation or non-participation in the NATO summit. It is clear from the wording of the lawsuit that a fundamental attempt is being made to rewrite the separation of powers in our country, to transition to a semi-presidential system, to fundamentally weaken institutions with democratic accountability to citizens – namely, the Parliament and the government – and, conversely, to strengthen the power of institutions that do not have this accountability – namely, the President of the Republic and the Constitutional Court.

The actors in this game do not hide their mutual agreement, coordination of actions, and therefore, the factual bias of the court. The President, who is confident of the support of the Constitutional Court, repeatedly threatened the government with a jurisdictional lawsuit, had it prepared in advance, and filed it within a few hours. The Constitutional Court, in open contradiction to its previous practice, made a decision in his favor in a few hours using a completely unusual tool, never before used in constitutional law and not foreseen by the constitution, namely a provisional measure. At the same time, it predetermined its final ruling. This is not about the constitution of the court. It is a struggle for power, and Bax's court does not hide the fact that it is one of the parties in this dispute. The public should know this. Unfortunately, shortsighted expediency has become the rule, and the willingness to actively distort the law and play political games has become common practice.

From the past, we should recall the jurisdictional dispute between the government and the President regarding the appointment of the Governor of the Czech National Bank and the bank board, in which the Constitutional Court, in an attempt to support President Havel at all costs, assigned this competence to the exclusive authority of the President, which is unique and potentially a risky absurdity for this highly technical state function. Rychetský's arbitrary postponement of the elections in 2009 and the sudden change in the electoral law in 2021 should also be mentioned in this context.

The current Constitutional Court and its chairman have shown that this practice is not a warning to them, but rather an inspiration. Today, as a result, the case of Turek during the formation of the government and the actions of President Pavel, who was already demanding a jurisdictional lawsuit that he was not authorized to file, appear in a different light. Prime Minister Babiš wisely rejected this step. With today's knowledge, we can imagine the outcome – a ruling that the government is actually formed not by the Prime Minister, but by the President. Parliamentary elections could be postponed.

```html

The jubilation of our opposition demonstrates that it is completely incapable of considering the consequences of the steps that it is carelessly applauding today, and which are aimed at the future, both against itself and against the current government. This short-sighted and opportunistic approach will ultimately backfire on all actors and typically strengthens those against whom it is directed. Those who, during the Zeman era, tried to weaken the position of the president at all costs and turned the law against him, are now, conversely, advocating for a semi-presidential system. The Constitutional Court should be a safeguard against this, but its actions in the case of the jurisdictional complaint have unfortunately shown that it is not.

Václav Klaus, Jiří Weigl, Ivo, Strejček, Ladislav Jakl, June 25, 2026

```