scholarly journals Judicial protection and interpretation of the right to take part in a referendum – an overview of the jurisprudence of the Hungarian Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (4 (2)) ◽  
pp. 43-54
Author(s):  
Csaba Erdös
Keyword(s):  
Political Participation ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
National Election ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Parliamentary Elections ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Right To Vote ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection

This paper gives an overview of the jurisprudence of the Hungarian Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court regarding the right to take part in a referendum. This is a fundamental right of political participation, not unlike the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in parliamentary elections. It being a genuine fundamental right, the Constitutional Court interpreted its authentic meaning and stipulated the most important constitutional requirements related to this right. One of the most important requirements was the establishment of a system of remedies, where the final decision on the certification of a question proposed for a referendum must be taken by the Constitutional Court. Parliament fulfilled this legislative requirement and since 1998 the Constitutional Court has controlled the constitutionality of the decisions taken by the National Election Committee on the certification of the referendum questions proposed. The 2013 Act on referendum transferred this competence to the Supreme Court. Since then, the Constitutional Court shall only decide referendum-cases which were submitted with the so-called ‘direct constitutional complaint’, an extraordinary type of constitutional remedy. The present paper compares these two remedy systems introduced for the protection of the right to take part in a referendum.

scholarly journals La responsabilidad civil de los magistrados del tribunal constitucional en tela de juicio = Civil liability of Constitutional Court Judges al issue

2014 ◽  
pp. 561
Author(s):  
Luis E. Delgado del Rincón
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Liability ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Right Of Access

En el trabajo se analiza la responsabilidad civil de los magistrados del Tribunal Constitucional teniendo en cuenta dos resoluciones judiciales. La primera, una sentencia de la Sala Primera del Tribunal Supremo, de 23 de enero de 2004 que, extralimitándose de sus funciones, condenó a los magistrados del Tribunal Constitucional por responsabilidad civil por culpa grave. La segunda, la sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional 133/2013, de 5 de junio que, casi diez años después, anula la decisión de la Sala Primera del Supremo por vulneración de dos derechos fundamentales de los magistrados constitucionales: el derecho de acceso a las funciones y cargos públicos, al impedir su ejercicio sin perturbaciones ilegítimas y el derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva, por dictar una resolución judicial con defectos constitucionales de motivación.The paper analyzes the civil liability of judges of the Constitutional Court considering two judicial decisions. The first, a judgment of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of 23January 2004, exceeding their functions, condemned the Constitutional Court judges from civil liability for gross negligence. Second, the Constitutional Court133/2013, of 5 June, almost ten years later, annuls the decision of the First Chamber of the Supreme for violation of two fundamental constitutional rights of judges: the right of access to public offices, to prevent illegitimate exercise without interferenceand the right to judicial protection, to render a judgment on constitutional defects reasons.

The Right to Assisted Dying: Constitutional Jurisprudence and Its Impact in Canada, Germany and Austria

ICL Journal ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerstin Braun
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Assisted Dying ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Constitutional ◽  
The Right ◽  
Constitutional Jurisprudence

Abstract Many states are grappling with the regulation of assistance in suicide and ending the life of another upon their request. Initially punishable in most countries, a growing number of jurisdictions have now introduced permissive frameworks decriminalising, to varying degrees, rendering assistance in dying. Other countries, however, have proceeded with the criminal prohibition and several courts have upheld the lawfulness of the respective criminal laws during human rights and constitutional challenges. Yet, the Supreme Court of Canada in 2015, the German Federal Constitutional Court in February 2020 and the Austrian Constitutional Court in December 2020 have respectively declared unconstitutional and void national criminal laws prohibiting rendering assistance in dying. This article first outlines the criminal law framework relating to assisted dying in Canada, Germany and Austria. It subsequently analyses the judgments before pondering their impact on the legal landscape in the three countries. The article concludes that while the Canadian Supreme Court decision appears to have had a significant impact on the introduction of subsequent legislation in Canada, the effects of the Constitutional Courts’ judgments seem much more subdued in Germany and are yet to unfold in Austria.

scholarly journals The Practice of Introducing Restrictions on the Right to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly within Administrative Proceedings and the Place of the Judicial Branch of Power in Determining the Admissibility of Such Restrictions

2020 ◽  
Vol 90 (3) ◽  
pp. 162-176
Author(s):  
М. А. Самбор
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Administrative Discretion ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Executive Agencies ◽  
Administrative Proceedings ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Understanding

The author has researched the practice of the executive branch of power of Ukraine in establishing a collective (general) ban and restriction of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly under quarantine, as well as the place and role of the judicial branch of power represented by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in determining the constitutionality of such restrictions and prohibitions. The powers of the Supreme Court on the constitutional submission to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the constitutionality of the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine “On quarantine to prevent the spread of acute respiratory disease COVID-19 caused by coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and stages of weakening of anti-epidemic measures” dated from May 20, 2020 No. 392 on the establishment of a ban on the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly within administrative proceedings during the introduction of quarantine in Ukraine, as well as the justification of such a constitutional submission. It is important to analyze and form a legal understanding of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the unconstitutionality of restricting and prohibiting the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly during quarantine within administrative proceedings – by adopting the relevant resolution by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, which was the result of administrative discretion of the highest agency in the system of executive agencies of Ukraine. In this regard, the study focuses on the motivation and validity of the decision of the agency of constitutional jurisdiction and understanding of those legal and social values that were the basis for the judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine while adopting the decision dated from August 28, 2020 No 10-r/2020.

scholarly journals JUDICIAL REVIEW SEBAGAI SARANA PERLINDUNGAN HAK-HAK ASASI WARGA NEGARA

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (22) ◽  
pp. 170-181
Author(s):  
Safi’ Safi’
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Recent Time ◽  
Public Acceptance ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Community Groups ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Laws And Regulations

Observing the development of public acceptance of the substance of the laws that were generated in recent time, the right of judicial review of an option that can not be avoided for the 'correct' errors that might occur in a legal product to guarantee the protection of constitutional rights of citizens. The tendency in this direction can be seen from the desire of some community groups to apply for judicial review and claim that they are legal products containing controversial value both to the Supreme Court nor the Constitutional Court. If prior to the amendment of the 1945 Constitution, laws and regulations that can be petitioned for review of material just under the Act against the Constitution, but after the 1945 amendment, the legislation level as the Act was that the Act and also Perpu material can be petitioned for review to the Constitutional Court.

scholarly journals Suplicatorio y política: Praxis parlamentaria y claves del debate doctrinal sobre el control jurisdiccional de la potestad denegatoria de los suplicatorios // Request to waive the Parliamentary Immunity and politics. Parliamentary praxis and keys issues of the doctrinal debate on the judicial review of the parliamentary power of denial the requests

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (103) ◽  
pp. 381
Author(s):  
Kayamba Tshitshi Ndouba
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Existing Problems ◽  
Spanish Constitution ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Parliamentary Procedure ◽  
The Right ◽  
Politics And Law

Resumen:El presente artículo aborda algunos problemas entre política y derecho que genera la decisión parlamentaria en la concesión o denegación de los suplicatorios. Por ello, analiza la praxis de los suplicatorios tramitados por el Congreso de los diputados y el Senado hasta la fecha, poniendo énfasis en la doctrina emanada de las decisiones adoptadas por las comisiones parlamentarias competentes. Para profundizar en la interacción entre suplicatorio, política y derecho, el artículo indaga en los pasos cualitativos y saltos prominentes de la evolución de la jurisprudencia constitucional sobre los límites de la facultad de las Cámaras para conceder o denegar el suplicatorio. Recaba y sistematiza el tratamiento académico de los puntos clave del debate emanado de estos sucesivos pronunciamientos del TC: las implicaciones de esta jurisprudencia en relación a los postulados constitucionales de independencia y ordenación de los poderes del Estado, las definiciones de criterios jurídicos que han de inspirar y guiar a las Cámaras para autorizar o denegar el suplicatorio, la concreción del modelo y la estructura de ponderación aplicables en los casos de colisión de dos derechos fundamentales (en este caso, los arts. 23 y 24 de la Constitución española [CE]). Summary:I. Praxis of the Parliamentary Procedure for the Waiver of Immunity. II. The Request to Waive the Parliamentary Immunity Before the Constitutional Court. Issues With Undeniable Constitutional Significance. III. The Constitutional Court and the Judicial Review of the Requests to Waive the Parliamentary Immunity. 1. Interna corporis acta and fundamental rights. 2. «Trial of opportunity» and the formal «requirement of a statement of reasons». 3. The degree of providing an adequate statement of reasons in the denial court’s decision. 4. The question of weighing up different values against one another: fundamental rights and the Parliament members’ prerogatives. IV. The Doctrinal Debate on the Constitutional Court’s Jurisprudence. 1. Emptying the parliamentarian immunity and the issue of «checks and balance» of State’s constitutional powers.2. Opposing the parliamentary immunity and the right of judicial action: the issue of preferential treatment. Concluding: Judicial Review or Political Review? Abstract:This article addresses the existing problems generated by the parliamentary decision in the granting or denial of requests made by the Supreme Court to the Parliament, in order to remove an MP’s parliamentary immunity, so that (s)he can be prosecuted. Such problems are studied both from the perspective of law and of political science. To this end, this paper analyzes and updates the research done to date about the parliamentary praxis on this issue, highlighting the doctrine which emanates from the decisions adopted by the competent parliamentary committees. In order to understand well the interaction between the praxis, politics and law, this paper also examines the most prominent changes and milestones in the evolution of the constitutional case law on the limits of the Parliament’s capacity to grant or to deny the Supreme Court request asking Parliament to remove an MP’s parliamentary immunity so that (s)he can be prosecuted. For this purpose, the paper systematizes the key points of the academic debate concerning the successive decisions of the Constitutional court: the repercussions of this jurisprudence vis-à-vis the constitutional postulates of separation and independence of State powers, the legal criteria that such postulates must inspire and in order to guide the Parliament in its decision to grant or deny the petition, the concretization of the model and the balance needed in cases of collision of two fundamental rights (in this case, articles 23 and 24 of the Spanish Constitution).

scholarly journals Comentario de los autos del Tribunal Supremo de 17 de octubre y 6 y 27 de noviembre de 2014, relativos a la ley de consultas populares y la «consulta popular no referendaria sobre el futuro político de Cataluña»

2016 ◽  
pp. 595
Author(s):  
Estela Gilbaja Cabrero
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Central Government ◽  
The Political ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Regional Government ◽  
The People ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right

El Parlamento catalán aprobó en 2014 una Ley de consultas populares. Anteriormente, en 2013, había aprobado una Declaración de soberanía y del derecho a decidir del pueblo de Cataluña. Basándose en los citados documentos, el Presidente de la Generalitat convocó una «consulta popular no referendaria sobre el futuro político de Cataluña», que tendría lugar el 9 de noviembre de 2014. No se llegó a celebrar porque el Tribunal Constitucional decretó su suspensión, ya que el Gobierno había impugnado ante él la Ley, la Declaración y el Decreto de Convocatoria. La Generalitat, una asociación y dos particulares entendieron que los recursos del Gobierno fueron una intromisión en los derechos de los catalanes y acudieron al Tribunal Supremo. El presente trabajo estudia los Autos del Tribunal Supremo que les dan respuesta.Catalan Parliament approved in 2014 a Popular Enquiry Act. Previously, in 2013, they had approved a Declaration of Sovereignty and the right to decide of the people of Catalonia. Based on these documents, the President of the regional Government called to a «non-referendum popular enquiry about the political future of Catalonia», which would be held on November 9, 2014. It did not get to celebrate because the Constitutional Court ordered its suspension, as the central Government had impugned the Act, the Declaration and the Decree calling for the enquiry. The regional Government, an association and two people thought those impugnations were an intrusion on the Catalans’ rights and went before the Supreme Court. This paper studies the reply of the Supreme Court.

scholarly journals PROCEDURAL FEATURES OF THE CONSIDERATION OF CASES OF UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 91-100
Author(s):  
A.V. Akhmedov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article reveals some procedural features of the consideration of cases of unauthorized buildings. Purpose: to identify the procedural norms contained in the substantive legislation that have a significant impact on determining the competence of jurisdictional bodies to consider the category of cases under investigation, the lawsuit form of protection of the right and persons involved in the case. The study is based on the analysis of scientific literature, the study of the material and procedural legislation of the Russian Federation and the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The results of the study. The author has identified criteria for distinguishing administrative and judicial forms of considering cases of unauthorized buildings, as well as criteria for delimiting the competence of courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts in these cases. The conclusion is substantiated on the need for legislative consolidation of the right of the prosecutor to appeal to the court and the right of the court to involve a third party in the process, declaring independent claims if he has consent. Proposals are made aimed at improving the rules of procedural law governing the procedure for considering cases of unauthorized buildings.

Part V Rights and Freedoms, B Rights and Freedoms under the Charter, Ch.34 Democratic Rights

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawood Yasmin
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Campaign Finance ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Future Challenges ◽  
Democratic Rights ◽  
Right To Vote ◽  
Bundle Of Rights ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the scope and protection of democratic rights in Canada. After outlining the source of democratic rights, it focuses on the right to vote by considering judicial decisions on such issues as voter qualifications, residency rules, and the entitlement to vote. It then shows how the Supreme Court has interpreted the right to vote as consisting of a bundle of democratic rights. By using the bundle of rights, the Supreme Court has been able to regulate a wide array of democratic institutions and processes. The chapter proceeds to examine the Court’s intervention in the electoral process by discussing its cases on electoral redistricting, political parties, campaign finance, and the dissemination of electoral information. The chapter concludes with an analysis of current and future challenges facing democratic rights and their protection by the courts.

Should Imprisoned Criminals have a Constitutional Right to Vote?.

1987 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 153-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zdravko Planinc
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Democratic Society ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Democratic Rights ◽  
Reasonable Limit ◽  
Right To Vote ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legislative Assembly

Section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms sets out the democratic rights of Canadian citizens. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein. Donald Smiley has written that “some of the rights contained in the Charter are stated so explicitly that there is little doubt about their meaning and effect,” and that section 3 is one of the best examples of such clarity. But Smiley was wrong. The “meaning and effect” of section 3 has been thrown into doubt by the question whether its guarantee of the right to vote extends to imprisoned criminals. Newfoundland obviously thinks that it does, for in The Charter of Rights Amendment Act 1985, it repealed the traditional prohibition of prisoner voting. Other jurisdictions have chosen to retain the legal prohibition and to defend it against constitutional challenges mounted by inmates of Canadian prisons. The issue is probably headed for the Supreme Court, which will have to decide whether prisoners are full “citizens” within the meaning of section 3, and, if they are, whether a limit on their right to vote can be justified under section 1 as a “reasonable limit, demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.”

scholarly journals Terms of Appeal of Definitions in Civil Procedure

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 47-52
Author(s):  
Lidia Terekhova
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Logical Method ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of First Instance

Introduction. Decisions made by the courts on emerging procedural issues are not subject to the rule of universal appeal and can be appealed only if there are two conditions specified in the law, the correctness of which is questioned in the literature. Purpose. The aim of the work is to substantiate the necessary conditions for an independent (separately from the decision) appeal of the rulings of the court of first instance. Methodology. The author used formal legal method, analysis, synthesis, formal logical method. Results. The proposals put forward in science are considered to supplement and amend the current civil procedural legislation in part of appealing the rulings of the court of first instance. The author, with reference to examples, noted that the current law does not always look fair and consistent in the sutuation of which particular definitions are subject to appeal. It is not always possible to agree with the legislator that he correctly singled out those definitions that are adopted on the most important procedural issues, delaying the verification of definitions on which may make it difficult or impossible to protect violated rights. Accordingly, there are reasonable claims that the legislator classifies specific definitions as appealed. The assignment of definitions to the number excluding the further movement of the case faces constant difficulties, since it is not always possible to understand by the nature of the definitions that they exclude the movement of the case. An important role in resolving disputes is played by the legal positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation periodically clarifies controversial issues when appealing against rulings that arise in judicial practice. The Constitutional Court clarifies both private issues and formulates general rules. Conclusion. The author recognizes the correct approach chosen in the current legislation, notes other than independent appeals, ways to protect rights, as well as the role of the highest judicial authorities in clarifying disputed situations. Thus, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation formulated a general rule: from the right to judicial protection guaranteed by the Constitution, the right to arbitrarily choose the procedure for appealing court decisions does not follow.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document