scholarly journals ADMISSIBILIDADE E LIMITES DAS SENTENÇAS ADITIVAS: JURISDIÇÃO CONSTITUCIONAL PARA ALÉM DO LEGISLADOR NEGATIVO - DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5216/rfd.v40i1.37655

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 122
Author(s):  
MÁRIO CESAR DA SILVA ANDRADE ◽  
WALESKA MARCY ROSA
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Operative Technique ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Alternative Decision ◽  
Federal Supreme

 RESUMO:O presente artigo analisa as sentenças aditivas como técnica alternativa de decisão no controle de constitucionalidade de omissões legislativas inconstitucionais. Investigou-se a compatibilidade das sentenças aditivas com a separação de poderes e os limites da utilização dessa controversa técnica decisória, bem como sua aplicação pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). A constatação da insuficiência das técnicas decisórias tradicionalmente utilizadas evidencia a necessidade de alternativas que superem as omissões inconstitucionais, garantindo a efetividade dos direitos fundamentais. Nesse cenário, as sentenças aditivas podem ser um útil instrumento de superação das eventuais omissões inconstitucionais do legislador. Porém, esse expediente é recorrentemente considerado incompatível com a concepção do tribunal constitucional como legislador negativo. Como referencial teórico adotou-se a conceituação das sentenças aditivas como técnicas decisórias do controle de constitucionalidade, conforme trabalhada pelo constitucionalista italiano Gustavo Zagrebelsky. O presente estudo concluiu pela compatibilidade das sentenças aditivas com a ordem constitucional brasileira, desde que respeitados determinados limites, como os impostos ao próprio legislador e a necessidade de prévia e suficiente orientação pelo ordenamento jurídico para a adição normativa. ABSTRACT:This article analyzes the additive judgments as an alternative decision technique in the judicial review of unconstitutional legislative omissions. It is investigated the compatibility of the additive sentences with the separation of powers and the limits of using such controversial operative technique and its application by the Federal Supreme Court (STF). The insufficiency of traditional decision-making techniques highlights the need for alternatives to overcome the unconstitutional omissions, ensuring the effectiveness of fundamental rights. In this scenario, the additive sentences can be a useful tool to overcome any unconstitutional legislative omissions. However, this expedient is recurrently considered incompatible with the concept of the constitutional court as a negative legislator. As a theoretical framework it is adopted the concept of the additive judgments as decision-making techniques of judicial review, as crafted by the Italian constitutionalist Gustavo Zagrebelsky. This study concluded that there is a compatibility of the additive sentences with the Brazilian constitutional order, since certain limits are respected, as in the case of taxes applied to the legislature itself and the need for prior and sufficient guidance by the legal system for normative addition.

4. EU Law: Sources, Forms, and Law-Making

2021 ◽  
pp. 94-140
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Alternative Decision ◽  
Law Making ◽  
The Eu

This chapter takes an overall view of the EU legal order and examines its legal system, including the elements which are either different from or similar to member states’ legal systems. It begins by taking an overall view of the EU legal order, the different forms of EU law, and the various sources of law contributing to this legal order, in particular now the rich source of human and fundamental rights in the EU legal order. It considers the non-strictly legally binding rules known as ‘soft law’. It also looks at the ways or processes by which the binding laws are made and reviews alternative decision-making and law-making developments.

4. EU Law: Sources, Forms, and Law-making

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Alternative Decision ◽  
Law Making ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the EU’s legal system. It begins by taking an overall view of the EU legal order, the different forms of EU law, and the various sources of law contributing to this legal order, in particular now the rich source of human and fundamental rights in the EU legal order. It considers the non-strictly legally binding rules known as ‘soft law’. It also looks at the ways or processes by which the binding laws are made and reviews alternative decision-making and law-making developments.

4. EU Law: Sources, Forms, and Law-Making

2019 ◽  
pp. 94-139
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Alternative Decision ◽  
Law Making ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the EU’s legal system. It begins by taking an overall view of the EU legal order, the different forms of EU law, and the various sources of law contributing to this legal order, in particular now the rich source of human and fundamental rights in the EU legal order. It considers the non-strictly legally binding rules known as ‘soft law’. It also looks at the ways or processes by which the binding laws are made and reviews alternative decision-making and law-making developments.

Is it time to understand Russia rationally? Test of suitability in constitutional adjudication

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 79-114
Author(s):  
Aleksei Dolzhikov
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Scientific Validity ◽  
Regulatory Decision ◽  
Unequal Treatment ◽  
Regulatory Impact ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication

The author discusses the application of the suitability test in constitutional adjudication. Then he puts forward a thesis that in comparison with the essentially philosophical categories of reasonableness and rationality, this prong of proportionality principle has practical value in judicial review of legislation. The political system has to meet the minimum standards of a deliberative democracy in order courts could use the doctrine of rationality. Among such standards are: recognition of the diversity of ideologies, real competition between political parties and other groups, a serious attitude towards discussion in society, etc. High courts, even in countries with long democratic traditions, usually use the self-restraint technique in reviewing the reasonableness of statutes. In illiberal and populist regimes, due to the unification of public discourse and the imitation of democratic institutions, the challenging of reasonableness of majority decisions can be dangerous. The argument on absurdity of legislation is relatively rare in the case-law of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. It can be found in the dissenting opinions of constitutional judges. In regard with the recent legislative ban on the publication of these opinions, the reasoning ad absurdum has rather theoretical significance for constitutional adjudication in Russia. Moreover, criticism of the reasonableness of legislation can now create additional obstacles for the difficult dialogue of the Russian Constitutional Court with the parliament and other “political” branches. An alternative to critically reviewing the unreasonableness of parliamentary decisions in constitutional adjudication are both the borrowing of economic methodology and certain principles of Legisprudence. The author puts forward the argument on utility of these principles on the judicial review of the ability of legislative means to achieve public goals. Suitability has an empirical nature and requires scientific validity of statutes. Selection of regulatory measures should be evidence-based and grounded on outcomes of research. Usually, constitutional judges do not have special knowledge of complex issues of socio-economic policy. More often than not, the absence of such an expertise means deference to the parliamentary and administrative fact-finding, which predetermined the normative decision. The intensity of the review of the suitability of legislation can be increased in those areas where constitutional judges have the necessary expertise or practical background. Constitutional tribunals recognize the broad discretion of representative bodies in forecasting the social, economic and other consequences. Otherwise, the intervention of judges in the goal-setting of regulatory policy is inevitable. Forecasting can be inaccurate and even erroneous due to the targeting of the regulatory decision for the future. A second-guess of the legislative forecast in constitutional adjudication is an exception to the general rule. It is possible due to newly discovered circumstances, changes taking place in society or progress in science. The implementation of regulatory impact assessment in law-making does not replace, but supplements the judicial review of the principle of proportionality. Consistency test in constitutional adjudication is closely related to the principle of legal certainty, which in turn excludes inconsistency and contradictions of legislative measures with public aims. The consistency approach obliges the members of parliament to be logical in the implementation of the legislative intent. Otherwise, citizens’ legitimate expectations in the governmental policy are undermined. The suitability test has an applied meaning in discrimination cases. If unequal treatment affects the fundamental rights of truly vulnerable social groups, constitutional judges could increase the intensity of judicial review of unreasonable laws.

Hungarian Constitutional Court: The Limits of EU Law in the Hungarian Legal System

ICL Journal ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-151
Author(s):  
Tímea Drinóczi
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Self Identity ◽  
Identity Based ◽  
Fundamental Law

Abstract The Constitutional Court declared in its ruling 22/2016 (XII 5) that by exercising its competences, it can examine whether the joint exercise of competences under Article E) (2) of the Fundamental Law of Hungary infringes human dignity, other fundamental rights, the sovereignty of Hungary, or Hungary’s self-identity based on its historical constitution.

The Federative Republic of Brazil

2021 ◽  
pp. 201-230
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Military Government ◽  
Military Dictatorship ◽  
Stare Decisis ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
The Military ◽  
The U.S

This chapter looks at Brazilian judicial review. Judicial review in Brazil originated because it was borrowed from the U.S. Constitution. It emerged in amplified form in Brazil’s 1988 Constitution because, by 1988, the normative appeal of judicial review was widely appreciated all over the world. Moreover, the Hybrid Model of judicial review in Brazil, whereby the Supreme Federal Tribunal is both, at the apex of a diffuse system of judicial review, and is also a Constitutional Court, reflects widespread appreciation for the value of a system like the German Constitutional Court in a civil law jurisdiction. The power of such a court to issue rulings with erga omnes effect is especially important in civil law countries like Brazil, which lack systems of stare decisis. First, judicial review emerged in Brazil as the result of borrowing. Second, it emerged as a rights from wrongs reaction to abuses of power during Fascism and during the military dictatorship, which ruled Brazil for 1964 until 1984. Third, judicial review is necessary in Brazil for both federalism and separation of powers umpiring reasons. Fourth, judicial review in Brazil also emerged because the constitution-writing elite wanted to entrench its liberal and socialist values to forestall the emergence of yet another military government in the country. And, fifth, the Brazilian Constitution divides and allocates power among so many federal and state entities that the Supreme Federal Tribunal has the political space it needs to play a really big role in governing the country.

scholarly journals El recurso directo: entre protección jurídica y constitucionalidad objetiva = Directation: between legal protection and objetive constitutionality

2014 ◽  
pp. 319
Author(s):  
Otto Pfersmann
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Direct Action ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Rule ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Constitutional Judicial Review

La posibilidad de que los individuos dispongan de un «recurso directo» para cuestionar normas del sistema jurídico ante el juez de la constitucionalidad no constituye un elemento necesario del Estado constitucional de Derecho. La institución de los «derechos fundamentales», no requiere, en cuanto tal, que la protección de los mismos deba corresponder al juez de la constitucionalidad de las leyes. Lo que permite distinguir los diferentes modelos es el grado en que concentran y distribuyen estas tareas (protección de derechos fundamentales y control de constitucionalidad de la ley, básicamente). Esto depende de varios factores: el grado de exhaustividad del control de la constitucionalidad de las normas, el tipo de supervisión (preventivo o correctivo), el número de órganos encargados del control y el número de componentes del mismo. Se plantea así el problema de la limitación que aqueja al Estado de Derecho, pues cuanto más exhaustiva pretende ser la realización del mismo, menos intensa resulta produciendo un paradójico debilitamiento del derecho fundamental y del principio de exhaustividad. Asistimos, pues, a una mutación del principio «monomicrodicástico» y exhaustivo de jurisdicción constitucional.The possibility for individuals to have a «direct action» to challenge the norms of the legal system before the judge of the constitutionality is not a necessary element of the constitutional Rule of law. The institution «fundamental rights» does not require, as such, that the judge of the constitutionality of the parliamentary statutes should grant their protection. What allows distinguishing the different models is the degree of the concentration and distribution of these basic tasks: protection of the fundamental rights, constitutional judicial review. This depends upon various factors: how exhaust the constitutional judicial review should be, what kind of constitutional supervision may be (preventive or corrective), the number of the organs charged with this task, and the number of its components. The question of the limitation of the Rule of Law is risen, because the more exhaustive its implementation is intended, the less intense, generating a paradoxal weakness of the fundamental right and the completeness principie. A phenomenon appears: the mutation of the «monomicrodicastic» principie and the completeness of the constitutional judicial review.

scholarly journals Upaya Menciptakan Produk Hukum Berkualitas Konstitusi Melalui Model Preventif Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 774
Author(s):  
Muhammad Reza Maulana
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
The Law ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Constitutional Issue ◽  
Legal Product

Pada hakikatnya judicial review dilaksanakan demi terciptanya keseimbangan hukum dan terpenuhinya hak konstitusional setiap pemangku kepentingan untuk bertindak dan mengajukan permohonan pembatalan suatu undang-undang kepada Mahkamah Konstitusi dengan menyatakan undang-undang tersebut telah bertentangan dengan UUD RI 1945. Pengujian undang-undang terhadap UUD 1945 dilakukan dalam upaya penyempurnaan hukum yang berlandaskan konstitusi. Setiap undang-undang haruslah dilandasi oleh aturan dasar yang tidak hanya tercantum pada konsiderannya saja, melainkan dibuat serta dilaksanakan berlandaskan nilai dan norma konstitusionalitas. judicial review yang selama ini dilakukan oleh banyak pihak pada Mahkamah Konstitusi membuktikan bahwa kualitas produk hukum atau aturan hukum yang selama ini dilahirkan oleh pembuat undang-undang seringkali bertolak belakang dengan keteraturan hukum, sehingga diperlukan langkah hukum preventive demi menjaga integritas lembaga pembentuk undang-undang agar tidak dianggap melahirkan produk hukum yang asal-asalan. Oleh karena itu, di dalam penelitian ini akan mengkaji dan menginisiasi pembentukan produk hukum yang berkualitas konstitusi sehingga Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai lembaga pengawal konstitusi memberikan kontribusi dengan cita konstitusi dan melahirkan produk hukum dengan kualitas konstitusi. Dalam penelitian ini metode yang yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan undang-undang dan konseptual. Hasil penelitian ini menggambarkan betapa pentingnya upaya preventive sebelum suatu aturan hukum kemudian ditetapkan, disahkan dan dilaksanakan, dimana ada persoalan konstitusionalitas terhadap implementasi suatu produk hukum yang kemudian oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dinyatakan bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945.Basically, judicial review has done to create a balance of law and to fulfill the constitutional right for every stakeholder to act and apply for application to constitutional court by stating the rule was contradicted to the constitution of Republic of Indonesia 1945. The application was made as an effort to perfect the law which is based on the constitution. Each rule has to be based on the basic rules, not only on its consideration but also is made and implemented in basic values and norms of contitutionality. Judicial review done by many people on constitutional court has proven that the quality of law product or rules of law made by the legislative often contradict with constitutional order of law, so it is necessary to take a step on preventive legal measurer to keep up the integrity of the rule maker of being judged making unqualified legal products. Therefore, this research reviews and initiates the production of law product so that the Constitutional Court can give preventive contribution on each legal products made, to be able to run with the ideals of the constitution and create legal products with constitution quality. This research used juridical normative method with legal and conceptual approaches. The results of this study illustrate how important preventive efforts before a rule of law are then set, ratified and implemented. In which there is a constitutional issue on the implementation of a legal product, that will be later declared by the Constitutional Court to be contradictory to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesian.

scholarly journals The Role of the Indonesian Constitutional Court for An Effective Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Adjudication

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 72
Author(s):  
Heribertus Jaka Triyana
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Legal Power

The Indonesian Constitutional Court has played important roles and functions to protect and fulfill human rights in the Indonesian legal system including the economic, social and cultural rights through its legal power of  judicial review.   It affirms that the ecosoc rights are legal justiciable rights and they are parts of constitutional mandates. It means that decision on judicial reviews require State to behave in accordance to legal thresholds decided by the Court. Undoubtedly, compliance to the decisions will reveal undeniable facts for fulfilment of state conduct. However, it seems that there are still many considerations, emphasis and excuse to somehow reduce or ignore threshold of application of the Court decisions. Complexity of actors, institutions, authorities, level of implementation, and orientation of particular policies, programs, actions and funds reduces the thresholds.

scholarly journals KAJIAN YURIDIS TERHADAP PENEGASAN HIEARAKI PERATURAN PERUNDANG-UNDANGAN DI INDONESIA DALAM PERSPEKTIF STUFEN THEORIE

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 95
Author(s):  
Muhammad Yusrizal Adi Syaputra
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Uncertainty

Rule lower against the rules of higher then lower regulation it can test the material (judicial review) to be canceled entirely or partially canceled. The assertion of hierarchy intended to prevent overlap between legislation that could give rise to legal uncertainty. Position regulations set by the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) House of Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), the Supreme Court (MA), the Constitutional Court (MK), the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), Commission Judicial (KY) , Bank Indonesia (BI), the Minister, the Agency, Organization, or commissions, in the Indonesian legal system recognized by Act No. 12 of 2011 either were born because of higher regulatory mandate and within the scope and authority of the minister. Thus, no doubt that the regulations set by state institutions, have binding force that must be obeyed by the parties set forth therein. While the Regulations issued policy also recognized as an Freies Ermessen in the execution of its duties and functions.<br /><br />

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document