Doc. JUDr. Jan Kysela, Ph.D., tajemník stálé komise Senátu pro Ústavu ČR, Katedra politologie a sociologie Právnické fakulty UK, email: kyselaj@prf.cuni.cz

The recent Supreme Court decision interpreting Article 27 Paragraph 2 of the Constitution has been exposed to heavy criticism. The Supreme Court has namely explained the so far non problematic term „statement“ made in the Chamber of Deputies or in the Senate or in their bodies as an „act“ related to the exercise of the office of a Member of Parliament or a Senator. In this way the Supreme Court has dramatically extended the scope of indemnity of a Member of Parliament to the extent that is comparatively quite unique, whereby it cannot be established which arguments have supported this view. It is relevant also from the point of view of general postulates of the proper interpretation of the law: if they are not observed judges can become absolute creators of law.