Tinkering with Tenure: the Russian Constitutional Court in a Comparative Perspective

Author(s):  
Sabrina Ragone

A finales de 2016 el Tribunal Constitucional federal alemán tuvo que decidir un recurso individual que reivindicaba, para los ciudadanos de Baviera, la posibilidad de un referéndum independentista. Este artículo analiza la decisión del Tribunal, contextualizándola a la luz de la jurisprudencia previa, del contexto político y de la doctrina. Finalmente, propone unas reflexiones críticas en perspectiva comparada.At the end of 2016, the German Federal Constitutional Court issued a decision concerning an individual appeal claiming the possibility of an independentist referendum for the Bavarian population. This article analyzes the Court’s decision, contextualizing it in the light of previous jurisprudence, political context and scholarship. Finally, it offers critical reflections from a comparative perspective.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabian Schusser

This study investigates the phenomenon of judicial activism from a comparative perspective by examining the highest constitutional courts in India and Germany: the Supreme Court and the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Federal Constitutional Court) respectively. In addition to answering the question of what role these courts play in their countries’ political institutional set-ups, the study explains to what extent they can be classed as powerful. Historical neo-institutionalism forms the study’s theoretical basis, which it deploys in endeavouring to understand the courts’ development and in identifying critical junctures in their histories.


Author(s):  
Nuno Garoupa ◽  
Pedro C. Magalhães

In this chapter, we discuss the judicial politics within the Spanish Constitutional Court from three main points of view. First, we discuss the origins and institutional design of the Court from a comparative perspective. Second, by making use of the standard approaches (attitudinal, strategic and legalist models of judicial behaviour), we examine the extent to which and the different ways in which political actors and other agents have engaged with the Court and what this has meant for its role in Spanish politics and policy-making. Finally, we focus on judicial behaviour in the Court, both from a comparative and an empirical perspective, and with a particular emphasis on the Court’s role in the allocation of powers and competencies between the central government and the ‘comunidades autónomas’.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 096
Author(s):  
M. Lutfi Chakim

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.


2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-39
Author(s):  
Sascha Hardt ◽  
Mariolina Eliantonio

Parliamentary and executive immunity – Italian Corte Costituzionale – Constitutional versus ordinary lawmaking – Comparative perspective to other EU member states – Italian situation unique


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document