The Czech Constitutional Court has rejected a proposal from opposition ANO MPs to repeal the government’s amendment to the pension law that set stricter conditions for early retirement and slowed down pension indexation, it announced today.
The government parties pushed their pension reform through parliament in order to reduce the debt of the pension system and the increase in pension spending.
ANO argued that the reforms violated the principle of rule of law, including predictability of law, rationality and transparency of the legislative process, and citizens’ trust in the law.
The motion, supported by all 71 ANO deputies, emphasized the negative impact of the reform on people who have already met the conditions for early retirement but have not yet exercised that right. Because of the new regulation, their chance to take an early pension is now subject to stricter conditions.
According to the Court, this was not an impermissible retroactive change and there were legitimate reasons for the modification of the rules. “Economists said that going into early retirement was preferable to waiting for a retirement pension, which doesn’t make good sense,” judge-rapporteur Jan Wintr told reporters.
The reform envisages a continuation of the increase in the retirement age from age 30 by one month a year until age 67, a lower calculation of new pensions, a minimum pension of 20% of average wages, an earlier pension without a reduction in the amount received for workers in the riskiest fourth category, cancellation of pension contributions for working pensioners, and the inclusion of notional earnings for the period of care in the pension.
The individual provisions will come into force gradually until 2027. ANO and Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD) have promised to repeal a substantial part of the reform if they come to power in the autumn after the parliamentary elections.
The motion also referred to the legislative procedure and the alleged limitation of debate in the lower house of parliament. The debate in the final third reading ended without all MPs who had wanted to speak at the plenary session having had the opportunity to do so. “The coalition government majority abused its superiority over the opposition and interpreted the rules of procedure of the Chamber of Deputies in a purposeful and arbitrary manner,” the ANO motion said.
Although the Constitutional Court confirmed that the government majority had violated the rules of procedure, it said the majority had a relevant reason for doing so, namely the opposition’s obstruction. The court stated that it will not grant protection to the house minority when it uses its rights under the rules of procedure for a purpose other than that for which they were enshrined.
According to the US, the discussion in the Chamber of Deputies was sufficiently long and thorough. ANO MPs had the opportunity to express themselves; the speeches of ANO chairman Andrej Babis alone lasted about eight hours.
The Court emphasized that violations of the rules of procedure by the majority of the MPs can only be understood as a last resort in situations where the rules of procedure do not give the majority effective tools to enforce its legitimate majority will against a determined filibuster.
For this reason, the Court again called for a reform of the rules of procedure. The judges said the reform is in the interest of any current and future government majority and opposition. “A paralysed parliament can neither properly perform its legislative function nor serve as a forum for public arguments and counter-arguments. A well-functioning parliament is essential for a well-functioning democracy,” wrote Wintr in his decision.
The court has been dealing with the issue since November 2023. It was the oldest pending motion that concerned a decision made by all constitutional judges. Original judge-rapporteur Josef Fiala did not find sufficient support from his colleagues for his solution, and so Wintr replaced him. Fiala was the only one to take a different position, proposing to repeal the amendment to the pension law as a whole.
