Abstract
The aim of this paper is the interpretation of 'the honourable and honest election campaign rule'. Given that honour and honesty are rather ambiguous and vague terms, the interpretation cannot rely solely on the linguistic method.
It is argued that the interest in the protection of fair political competition is, in fact, stronger than the interest in the protection of fair economic competition in virtue of lower levels of rationality observed during voters' than during consumers' decision-making. Using argumentum a minori ad maius, it can be inferred, that the assessment of honour and honesty of election campaign should be more careful than the assessment of respective qualities in the context of unfair competition.
In addition, the problem stemming from the principles of democracy and division of power, which does not allow the courts to substitute their will for the will of the voters, is taken into account. Close attention is paid to the judicial review of the Czech presidential elections in 2018 and it is claimed that the courts made mistake when they failed to recognise the unlawfulness of Mr Zeman's slogan, which is something they could have done without invalidating the election altogether.
The author concludes by highlighting the danger for democracy created by the practice of judicial legitimisation of similar expressions and, echoing some older cases of the Czech Constitutional Court, calls for stricter regulation of the election campaigns in the country.