ABSTRACT

This chapter summarizes the empirical findings. It examines commonalities and differences in the treatment of the Strasbourg case law by the three Czech apex courts: the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Administrative Court. Through a synthesis of empirical results, it helps us comprehend the extent and conditions to which trends in the use of European Court of Human Rights case law spread between the three Czech apex courts. The chapter shows two scenarios. In the first, the apex courts operate autonomously; they are deeply embedded in their specific milieu and slow to adapt to external impulses. In the second scenario, the apex courts can be sensitive to the developments at other domestic apex courts and adjust their behavior according to outside trends. Both scenarios (institutional encapsulation or institutional spillover from one court to another) are conceivable. Furthermore, the chapter demonstrates similarities and differences between the old (the Supreme Court) and new courts (the Supreme Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court), and between the ordinary apex courts (the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court) and a constitutional court (the Constitutional Court).