Abstract
When we talk about the limitation of rights, we traditionally proceed from identification of fundamental rights to identification of reasons permissible for their limitation (public order, national security, public morality etc.). That implies conceptual priority of fundamental rights and lower focus on the definition of legitimate aims as set out by the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in the so-called limitation clauses.
It is precisely identification of legitimate aims that is the singular purpose of the second step of the test of constitutional conformity in the case-law of the Czech Constitutional Court. While the Court's decisions are abundant in definitions of contents, scopes, natures and functions of fundamental rights, legitimate aims fell short of receiving such attention.
Does it mean that for the Constitutional Court this category does not raise any questions?