scholarly journals A Comparative Perspective on Constitutional Complaint: Discussing Models, Procedures, and Decisions

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 096
Author(s):  
M. Lutfi Chakim
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Turkish Constitution

The constitutional complaint is one of the important constitutional court jurisdictions that can be described as a complaint or lawsuit filed by any person who deems his or her rights has been violating by act or omission of public authority. Currently, the constitutional court in many countries have adopted a constitutional complaint system in a variety of models. However, the first application of the constitutional complaint jurisdiction came from Europe. In Austria, the constitutional complaint is allowed against the administrative actions but not against the court decisions. While Germany and Spain have a similar model that is a complaint against an act of the public authority including court decisions. In Asia, it is imperative that the court in Asia actively participate in the Association of Asian Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Institutions (AACC). The AACC members have adopted a system of constitutional adjudication in a variety of models, and when it comes to jurisdictions, out of sixteen AACC members, there are four countries (Azerbaijan, South Korea, Thailand, and Turkey) have the constitutional complaint in their jurisdictions. In Azerbaijan, constitutional complaint is comparatively broad. Azerbaijan’s Constitutional Court can handle constitutional complaint against the normative legal act of the legislative and executive, an act of a municipality and the decisions of courts. In contrast, even though constitutional complaint in South Korea and Thailand can be against the exercise and non-exercise of state power, constitutional complaint cannot be filed against court decisions. In Turkey, the constitutional complaint mechanism is coupled with the regional system of human rights protection. The Turkish Constitutional Court handles complaints from individuals concerning violations of human rights and freedoms falling under the joint protection of the Turkish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This paper argues that constitutional complaint represents the main part of the constitutional court, and through a comparative perspective among three countries in Europe and four AACC members are expected to provide lessons for the other AACC members that do not have a constitutional complaint mechanism, such as Indonesia.

scholarly journals General and Particular Approaches to Implementation of theEuropean Convention on Human Rights

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 ◽  
pp. 248-292
Author(s):  
VLADIMÍRA PEJCHALOVÁ GRÜNWALDOVÁ
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Level ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
The Czech Republic ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court

AbstractThis article deals with the implementation, at the national level, of European human rights protection standards as enshrined in theEuropean Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) and interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). It discusses the principles of interpretation of theECHRby the ECtHR, the interaction and mutual dialogue between the ECtHR and national courts, and the approach of the latter to interpretation and application of the case law of the ECtHR. Using the concrete examples of France and the Czech Republic as case studies, it is shown to what extent and how European constitutional courts take into account and apply the letter of the Convention and its interpretation by the ECtHR.

An Emerging Right to a “Gay” Family Life? The CaseOliari v. Italyin a Comparative Perspective

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 451-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina Ragone ◽  
Valentina Volpe
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Same Sex Couples ◽  
European Court ◽  
National Perspective ◽  
The Right

This Article analyses, through the lens of comparative law, theOliari and others v. Italyjudgment, which was issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in July 2015. TheOliaricase is important for being the first judgment in which the ECtHR established the granting of legal “recognition and protection” to same-sex couples as a positive obligation for the Member States of the Council of Europe on the basis of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In order to understand the role of judicial bodies in the progressive protection of homosexual rights, this Article combines an analysis of European case law with the national perspective. As it concerns the supranational facet, the authors illustrateOliari's reasoning and situate the case in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. Elements of both continuity and innovation emerge from the analysis, as well as a relevant dimension of judicial dialogue supporting the incremental recognition of gay rights in Europe. As it concerns the national facet, this specific case was initially dealt with at the domestic level and was the object of judgment 138/2010 by the Italian Constitutional Court. The judgment is critically put into perspective through the examination of the jurisprudence of other European Constitutional Courts (France, Portugal and Spain) that were called on to decide similar cases in the same period. Therefore, the Article offers a comparative analysis of theOliarijudgment clarifying its relevance and speculating on the potential value of this case for the future recognition of the right to a “gay” family life in Europe.

scholarly journals Mainstreaming Human Rights in the Asian Judiciary

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 77
Author(s):  
Desi Hanara
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
The Guardian

Human rights protection in Asia is hindered by the absence of binding human rights instruments and enforcement mechanisms, including the lack of human rights mainstreaming into the works of relevant stakeholders, notably the judiciary. Judiciary plays key roles in the realization and protection of human rights. As the guardian of the Constitution, the Indonesian Constitutional Court (‘the Court’) is mandated to protect the human rights of the citizens. This paper argues that the Court, which previously served as the President of the Association of Asian Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Institutions (AACC), has the potential to play a leading role in mainstreaming human rights in the region. Using normative and comparative legal research methodologies, the paper identified the Court’s mandates on human rights at the national, regional and international levels; assessed the need for human rights mainstreaming in the Asian judiciary; and examined the significant potential of the AACC to house the mainstreaming project. Finally, it proposes several recommendations for the Court’s consideration, namely to encourage judicial independence, recommend human rights incorporation into judicial discussions and decisions, suggest the establishment of a platform to enhance human rights expertise of the judiciary, as well as facilitate a platform for the development of binding human rights instruments and the establishment of an Asian Human Rights Court.

scholarly journals JUDICIAL ADJUDICATION IN HOUSING RIGHTS IN BRAZIL AND COLOMBIA: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vanice Regina Lírio do Valle
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Constituent Assembly ◽  
Housing Rights ◽  
The Creation

Cooperative constitutionalism is the watchword in the 21st. century, and the creation of a judicial network is an important tool to improve human rights protection. This paper intends to contribute in that field, reporting the constitutional framework and the main decisions held by the Brazilian and the Colombian Constitutional Courts in protecting housing rights. The comparison is justified by the historical proximity in the juridical transition in both countries – 1988 in Brazil and 1991 in Colombia –; and also by the clear inspiration that Colombia took in the Brazilian Constitution at the time of their Constituent Assembly. As the narrative may show, formal constitutional clauses were not the key element to assure some level of efficacy to the housing right; Colombian results seems to be more solid and based in normative parameters, even though the literal text of the constitution does not provide housing rights with immediate efficacy.

Multilevel cooperation of the European Constitutional Courts: Der Europäische Verfassungsgerichtsverbund

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Voβkuhle
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Broad Concept ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
German Constitutional Court

Broad concept of constitutional jurisdiction – Triangle between Karlsruhe, Strasbourg and Luxembourg – European vocation of the German Constitutional Court and Basic Law – European Convention on Human Rights – Karlsruhe decisions can be reviewed in Strasbourg – Human rights-related constitutional court – European Court of Justice developed into constitutional court of the Union – Verbund between three courts – No simplistic hierarchy – Verbund techniques – Dialogue in Human Rights; Interplay in Integration – Federal Constitutional Court and European Court of Human Rights functionally comparable – Both Courts seek substantive coherence as Verbund technique – Federal Constitutional Court commits all German authorities to the Convention – Federal Constitutional Court and ECJ – Principle of openness to European Law – Sharing and assigning responsibilities in complex system – Solange, ultra vires and identity review – Responsibility for integration, due by Court and other German bodies – Federal Court contributes to common European Constitutional order – Europe-wide discursive struggle and ‘Lernverbund’

scholarly journals What Constitutes as Limitation of (Human) Rights in Indonesian Legal Context?

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 290
Author(s):  
Anbar Jayadi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Legal Context ◽  
The Right

This article reviews the interpretation of the Constitutional Court (the Court) on the Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution by looking into the rulings related to the Information and Electronic Transaction Law. These rulings are chosen because, in those rulings, tensions between individual and public interest are apparent. For example, the tension between the right to privacy and freedom of expression, and the tensions between freedom of expression and public order. The rulings that will be studied in this writing are Ruling No. 50/PUU-VI/2008, Ruling No. 2/PUU-VII/2009, Ruling No. 5/PUU-VIII/2010, Ruling No. 52/PUU-XI/2013, and Ruling No. 20/PUU-XIV/2016. In studying those rulings, this article use a legal method namely the interpretation of arguments, e.g. what are the arguments provided by the claimants in the case in relation to the Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution and how does the Court responds to such arguments. Additionally, this writing will also compare the rulings to each other to portray the “variety” of interpretation by the Court over the time. Furthermore, this article will compare the Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution and the Court’s interpretation of it to other standards of limitation in other human rights instruments such as European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in order to depict what are the distinctive features of limitation of rights in Indonesian regime in comparison to other regimes. Last but not least, this article analyze what are the lesson learned from studying the Court’s interpretation and the possible consequence of such interpretation to the human rights protection in Indonesia.

scholarly journals IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS OF THE CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Валерий Зорькин ◽  
Valyeriy Zorkin
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal System ◽  
National Level ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Russian Constitution ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article is devoted to the problems of implementation into the domestic law of the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECPHRFF) and Convention-based decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The author notes that the complexity of the ECPHRFF provisions’ implementation process is caused by the lack of efficient legal remedies at the national level. Among the reasons for failure to execute or for the delay in execution of the ECPHRFF requirements and ECHR decisions, there are lack of coordination of actions between different government agencies and differences in approaches to ECPHRFF interpretation, political contradictions. The article justifies an important role of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation in improving the Russian legislation and lawenforcement by means of implementation of the ECPHRFF provisions and ECHR case law. The author underlines that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation activity is aimed at resolving two tasks: harmonization of the Russian legal system with the European legal framework and protection of own constitutional identity. The author considers the problem of “judicial activism” in the ECHR activity, that is aimed at extended interpretation of the ECPHRFF articles. The author pays special attention to the issue of application by the ECHR of the European consensus methodology which it used to determine the discretion of states in safeguarding conventional rights. At the same time the author points to the inconsistency of this concept in regard to the ECPHRFF basic principles. The author justifies the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation position, in accordance with which ECPHRFF and the ECPHRFF-based decisions of ECHR do not override the priority of the Russian Constitution for national constitutional courts and the Russian legal system in those cases when the Russian Constitution is capable to ensure better protection of human and civil rights and freedoms. The author draws the conclusion that cooperation of the European and Russian legal orders is not possible in the context of subordination; it is necessary to establish a dialogue between the legal systems which is a guarantee of the all-European law development.

Rights Revolution and Counter-Revolution: Democratic Backsliding and Human Rights in Hungary

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-123
Author(s):  
Gábor Halmai
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Civil Society Organizations ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Fundamental Law ◽  
Human Rights Standards

AbstractThe Article discusses the democratic backsliding after 2010 in Hungary, and how it affected the state of human rights in the country, a Member State of the European Union. The main argument of the Article is that paradoxically the non-legitimate 1989 constitution provided full-fledged protection of fundamental rights, while the procedurally legitimate 2011 constitution-making resulted in curtailment of rights and their constitutional guarantees. The Article first describes the democratic transition that occurred in 1989–1990 as a rights revolution and the results of the 2011 “illiberal” constitution, called Fundamental Law, as counter-revolution. The second part of the Article illustrates the constitutional and statutory regulation of human rights protection after this “rule of law revolution,” and the activist jurisprudence of the first Constitutional Court using the concept of an “invisible constitution” to protect human rights. The third part discusses the rights provisions of the new Fundamental Law and several statutes dismantling the guarantees of human rights, with special attention to the decreased possibilities of state institutions, such as the Constitutional Court, the ordinary judiciary and ombudsmen, as well as civil society organizations to effectively protect fundamental rights. The fourth part assesses the efforts of European institutions to force the Hungarian government to comply with the human rights standards laid down in the European Convention of Human Rights and in the Treaty of the European Union. The Article concludes that neither internal nor external challenges could prevent the development of a new authoritarian regime with no guaranteed human rights.

The Changing Role and Reception of International Law in Domestic Constitutional Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 425-442
Author(s):  
Marie-Christine Fuchs
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Latin America ◽  
International Law ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Changing Role

This chapter addresses the changing role and reception of international law into domestic constitutional jurisdictions in Latin America and Europe. It begins by presenting a descriptive analysis of the differences between Europe and Latin America. Despite the existence of the 'conventionality control' doctrine developed in Latin America by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (ICtHR), the European context seems more complex and diverse due to the 'three spheres of human rights protection': the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and the national constitutional courts. The chapter then argues that, despite the fact that the multilevel architecture of protection provides States with a large range of opportunities for improving the effective protection of human rights both in Europe and Latin America, in practice, the most relevant level of guaranteeing such protection still seems to be at the domestic constitutional level. After exploring the 'conventionality control' and the application of the 'constitutionality block' doctrine developed by the Colombian Constitutional Court, it turns to examine the 'margin of appreciation doctrine'. Paradoxically, this doctrine, introduced by the ECtHR, has recently regained power both in Europe and Latin America as a bedrock of the 're-birth' of nationalistic movement.

Individual application to the Turkish Constitutional Court as a case of constitutional transfer

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
ENGIN YILDIRIM ◽  
SERDAR GÜLENER
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
New Host ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Turkish Government ◽  
European Court ◽  
Policy Objectives ◽  
Venice Commission ◽  
The Individual

Abstract:The article has sought to clarify the phenomenon of constitutional transfer through an analysis of the introduction and implementation of the individual complaint procedure in Turkey. Individual access to constitutional courts has recently attained prominence as an effective tool of human rights protection and it is viewed as an example of the broader phenomenon of transfer of constitutional ideas from a point of origin to a new host environment. Critically applying the IKEA theory of constitutional transfer to the Turkish experience of the individual application to the Constitutional Court, we argue that the transfer process involves more than a simple interaction between the promoter and the importer, both of whom have converging as well as diverging expectations. The Turkish experience has proved a useful case to demonstrate the dynamic and multifaceted nature of the process of constitutional transfers. The Venice Commission, the European Court of Human Rights, the Turkish Constitutional Court and the Turkish Government all have important stakes in the success of the transfer to realise their own policy objectives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document