THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN THE MECHANISM OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES IN STATES WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE: OPERATIONAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Published: Mar 16, 2020

  Iryna Berestova

  Galyna Yurovska

Abstract

This article studies the legal status and the performance of the Constitutional Court (hereinafter referred to as the CC). The experience of States with direct access to a body of constitutional jurisdiction enables to distinguish the CC's position in the system of State jurisdictions (with particular economic justification of its activity) and to substantiate its role in the mechanism of domestic remedies. The aim of the article is to reveal the CC's place in the mechanism of domestic remedies of States with centralized constitutional review and direct access to constitutional justice on the part of effective protection of the applicants’ rights and the state budget in the formation of judicial remedies. Methodology. The leading methods of the article are correlation, comparativelegal, dialectical and technical logic methods of research, etc. They enable to compare and contrast international standards in the field of legislation of different European States, to reveal the nature of constitutional and legal conflicts and specifics of the constitutional procedure for the CC’s cases. These problems are also investigated using the method of synthesis of financial justification of the activities of the bodies of constitutional jurisdiction and the effectiveness of the results of their activities in the protection of rights and freedoms of an individual and a citizen. This enables to formulate further development and suggestions for improving the legal regulation of the CC’s activities in the States that have recently begun to implement this instrument of protecting constitutional human rights and freedoms. The key results of the study. It is proven that the CC is a specific body that is the last at the national level to exercise exceptional special powers aimed at protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms. The role of the CC in the system of domestic remedies is revealed. The CC is an autonomous body of constitutional jurisdiction with a constitutional status, independent of the executive and legislative branches. It is substantiated that the CC is factually affiliated to the judicial authorities engaged in jurisdiction. It is proven that the CC's activities are characterized by judicial independence, combined with the powers of the CC judges to decide legal matters within its constitutional jurisdiction. Cases are judicial in nature, and the CC considers them on the rule of law. The decisions adopted shall be mandatory (binding) and shall not be altered by other branches of government. The main functions of the body of constitutional jurisdiction are distinguished into quasi-judicial, cognitive and evaluative, harmonizing. The consistent universal approach of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as ECHR) states that the notion of "court" does not necessarily mean classical jurisdiction, integrated into the judicial system of the state. Finally, the article proves the requirement of recognizing the CC as a “court established by law” essentially and functionally. Consistent approaches and criteria for defining the notion of "court established by law" formulated by the UN Committee on Human Rights and the ECHR's case-law prove that the CC can be identified as the last mandatory domestic remedy before applying to international judicial institutions, subject to the criterion of an effective remedy, formulated by the ECHR's caselaw during proceedings in the CC.

How to Cite

Berestova, I., & Yurovska, G. (2020). THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN THE MECHANISM OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES IN STATES WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE: OPERATIONAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS. Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, 6(1), 18-25. https://doi.org/10.30525/2256-0742/2020-6-1-18-25
Article views: 309 | PDF Downloads: 305

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

Constitutional Court, “court established by law, ” jurisdictional body, judicial body, jurisdictional activity, constitutional review, domestic remedy, the right to a fair trial, socio-economic efficiency

References

Analysis of the Constitutional Court work targeting legal certainty and the right to a final decision concluding observations. concluding observations (2019). URL: https://rm.coe.int/analysis-of-the-constitutional-courtwork-concluding-remarks-eng/168093f4a0

Belilos v Switzerland. European Court of Human Rights (1988). URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int

Bondar, N. S. (2017). Konstitutsionnyiy Sud v sisteme yurisdiktsionnyih organov (o «bogougodnyih grehah» konstitutsionnogo pravosudiya) [Constitutional Court in the system of jurisdictional bodies (on the “pious sins” of constitutional justice)]. Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatelstva i sravnitelnogo pravovedeniya, no. 1, pp. 27–30.

Campbell and Fell v the United Kingdom (1984). European Court of Human Rights. No 8, p. 76. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int

Chekryigova, M. A. (2010). K voprosu o statuse Konstitutsionnogo suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii [On the status of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation]. Bulletin of the South Ural State University, no 10, pp. 103–104.

Constitutional of Ukraine. Law of 28.06.1996. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80/ed19960628

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Rome, 4.XI.1950. URL: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

Dániel A. Karsai (2018). Role of the constitutional courts in the system of the effective domestic remedies – a new approach on the horizon? Criticism of the Mendrei v. Hungary decision. URL: https://strasbourgobservers.com/218/10/15/role-of-the-constitutional-courts-in-the-system-of-the-effective-domestic-remedies-a-new-approachon-the-horizon-criticism-of-the-mendrei-v-hungary-decision/

Fish, E. S. (2017). Prosecutorial constitutionalism. Southern california law review. Volume 90. Issue 2, pp. 237–306.

Findlay v the United Kingdom (1997). European Court of Human Rights. No. 8, p. 77. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-58016%22]}

General comment no. 32, Article 14, Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to fair trial (23 August 2007). § 19. URL: https://www.refworld.org/docid/478b2b2f2.html

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (1966). Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966. entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49. URL: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx

Khotynska-Nor, O. Z. (2017). Teoretyko-pravovi ta prakseolohichni zasady sudovoi reformy v Ukraini [Theoretical, Legal and Practical Principles of Judicial Reform in Ukraine. The dissertation of Doctor of Science of Laws]: dys. ... d-ra yuryd. nauk : 12.00.10. Kyiv.

Lavents v Latvia (2002). European Court of Human Rights. No. 786, p. 114. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int

Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v Belgium (1981). European Court of Human Rights. No. 3, p. 55. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int

Mendrei against Hungary (2018). European Court of Human Rights. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-184612

Morris v the United Kingdom (2002). European Court of Human Rights. No. 162, p. 73. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-68224

Polyanskiy, V. V. (2013) Garmoniziruyuschaya funktsiya Konstitutsionnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii (konstitutsionnoe soderzhanie i perspektivyi realizatsii) [Harmonizing function of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation (constitutional content and implementation prospects)]. Legal world, no. 12, p. 23.

Posokhov v Russia (2003). European Court of Human Rights. No. 17, p. 39. URL: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/ENG?i=001-56383.

Ringeisen v Austria (1971). European Court of Human Rights. No. 2, p. 95. URL: https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:ihrl/8echr71.case.1/law-ihrl-8echr71

Shcherbaniuk, O. (2016). Udoskonalennia normatyvno-pravovoho zabezpechennia diialnosti Konstytutsiinoho Sud Ukrainy yak shliakh do formuvannia yevropeiskoi modeli konstytutsiinoho sudochynstva [Improvement of regulatory support for the activity of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine as a way to form the European model of constitutional justice.]. Visnyk Konstytutsiinoho Sudu Ukrainy, no. 6, p. 187.

Shevchuk, S. V. (2007). Sudova pravotvorchist: svitovyi dosvid i perspektyvy v Ukraini [Sudova lawmaking: retailers and prospects in Ukraine]. Kyiv.

Spravedlivoe sudebnoe razbiratelstvo v mezhdunarodnom prave: yuridicheskiy sbornik (2013). [Fair Trial in International Law: A Compendium of Laws]. Сompilation. Warsaw. Homework. Sramek v Austria (1984). European Court of Human Rights. No. 12, pp. 36, 64. URL: https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:ihrl/8echr71.case.1/law-ihrl-8echr71

Study on individual access to constitutional justice (Venice, 17-18 December 2010). CDL-AD(2010)039rev. Strasbourg, 27 January 2011. P. 16. URL: https://www.venice.coe.int/WebForms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2010)039rev-e

Van de Hurk v the Netherlands (1994). European Court of Human Rights. No. 14, p. 45. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57878.%22]}