Key facts
- Czech President Petr Pavel is suing Prime Minister Andrej Babiš.
- The lawsuit concerns Babiš's decision to exclude Pavel from the NATO summit delegation.
- Pavel claims the exclusion limits his constitutional powers.
Czech President Petr Pavel has filed a competency lawsuit against Prime Minister Andrej Babiš, seeking to clarify who decides on the head of state's participation in international summits, specifically the upcoming NATO summit in Ankara.

The dispute highlights a significant power struggle between the Czech President and Prime Minister, potentially impacting the country's representation and foreign policy decisions on the international stage.
Czech President Petr Pavel has filed a lawsuit against Prime Minister Andrej Babiš, escalating a political dispute over representation at an upcoming NATO summit. The competency suit, lodged with the Czech Constitutional Court, seeks clarity on who has the authority to decide on the head of state's attendance at international gatherings.
Pavel stated that Babiš's decision to exclude him from the government delegation attending the NATO summit in Ankara in July was an attempt to "exclude" him and "limit the role granted to him by the Constitution." He emphasized that his predecessors had always attended NATO summits and that he had participated in every such gathering since taking office in 2023.
The prime minister's decision, announced Monday, comes amid contention over Prague's planned reduction in core military spending to approximately 1.8 percent of GDP, falling below NATO's 2 percent target. Pavel has publicly opposed these cuts, deeming them "irresponsible," which may have influenced Babiš's move.
Babiš acknowledged Pavel's decision to sue but expressed his disapproval, stating on X that it is "not appropriate for constitutional officials to file lawsuits against one another." This legal challenge marks the latest development in a strained relationship between the two politicians, who were rivals in the 2023 presidential election.
Pavel insisted the dispute transcends a single meeting, focusing instead on the separation of powers. He argued that failing to defend these powers would make him responsible for enabling further arbitrary curtailments of constitutional officials' authority.
Pick the topics you care about. Get only what matters, on your cadence.