Preaching Consistency, Drinking Inconsistency

IIt would not be the first time that a seemingly dull case ends up opening an unexpected door and shakes the current status quo.The case Suvernn d Maltzskch Ryt -esk Velkopevorstv v The Czech Republic is a textbook example of that.Beneath the surface of redressing decades-old restitution injustices, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) shifted its approach to consistency of the case law, recalibrated the threshold for the Court's intervention, and opened the way for claims to a right to a grand chamber before domestic apex courts.Moreover, by overlooking the specific role of constitutional courts, the judgment touches upon the core architecture of subsidiarity and the premise that the Court is not the next (fourth) instance.In the judgment, the Court held that the fourth chamber of the Czech Constitutional Court had breached the principle of legal certainty by disregarding a newly established line of its own case law on the matter under consideration.