DOCSLIB.ORG

Report on Separate Opinions of Constitutional Courts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report on Separate Opinions of Constitutional Courts Strasbourg, 17 December 2018 CDL-AD(2018)030rev Opinion No. 932 / 2018 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) REPORT ON SEPARATE OPINIONS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 117th Plenary Session (Venice, 14-15 December 2018) on the basis of comments by Mr Christoph Grabenwarter (Member, Austria) Ms Monika Hermanns (Substitute Member, Germany) Ms Kateřina Šimáčková (Substitute Member, Czech Republic) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2018)030rev - 2 - Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4 II. GENERAL REMARKS AND SCOPE ............................................................................. 4 III. ANALYSIS..................................................................................................................... 6 A. Advantages and disadvantages of separate opinions ................................................ 6 Safeguarding the authority of the court and the quality of judgments ................... 6 Preserving the independence of judges ............................................................... 8 Development of the law and legal culture .......................................................... 10 Summary ........................................................................................................... 11 B. Rules governing separate opinions .......................................................................... 11 Level of regulation ............................................................................................. 11 Differences according to the types of proceedings ............................................ 12 Time limits ......................................................................................................... 12 Wording, content and style ................................................................................ 13 Whether or not the majority is allowed to respond ............................................. 14 Pronouncement; anonymity and whether or not to disclose the number of votes15 Whether or not to disclose the number of votes ................................................. 16 Publication of separate opinions ........................................................................ 16 IV. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 17 V. APPENDIX – REGULATIONS REGARDING SEPARATE OPINIONS ........................ 18 A. Examples of States with relevant provisions on separate opinions .......................... 18 Albania .............................................................................................................. 18 Armenia ............................................................................................................. 18 Azerbaijan ......................................................................................................... 18 Bosnia and Herzegovina ................................................................................... 19 Brazil ................................................................................................................. 19 Bulgaria ............................................................................................................. 19 Chile .................................................................................................................. 20 Croatia .............................................................................................................. 20 Cyprus ............................................................................................................... 20 Czech Republic ................................................................................................. 20 Denmark............................................................................................................ 21 Estonia .............................................................................................................. 21 Finland .............................................................................................................. 22 Georgia ............................................................................................................. 22 Germany ........................................................................................................... 22 Greece .............................................................................................................. 23 Hungary ............................................................................................................ 23 Iceland .............................................................................................................. 23 Ireland ............................................................................................................... 24 Kazakhstan ....................................................................................................... 24 Kosovo .............................................................................................................. 24 Korea, Republic ................................................................................................. 24 Kyrgyzstan ........................................................................................................ 25 Latvia ................................................................................................................ 25 Lithuania............................................................................................................ 25 Mexico ............................................................................................................... 26 Moldova, Republic of ......................................................................................... 26 Monaco ............................................................................................................. 26 Montenegro ....................................................................................................... 26 Norway .............................................................................................................. 27 Peru .................................................................................................................. 27 Poland ............................................................................................................... 27 - 3 - CDL-AD(2018)030rev Portugal ............................................................................................................. 27 Romania ............................................................................................................ 28 Russian Federation ........................................................................................... 28 Serbia ................................................................................................................ 29 Slovak Republic ................................................................................................. 29 Slovenia ............................................................................................................ 29 Spain ................................................................................................................. 30 Sweden ............................................................................................................. 30 “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” .................................................. 31 Turkey ............................................................................................................... 31 Ukraine .............................................................................................................. 31 United Kingdom ................................................................................................. 32 B. The European Court of Human Rights ..................................................................... 32 CDL-AD(2018)030rev - 4 - I. INTRODUCTION 1. At the 115th Plenary Session in June 2018, the Venice Commission endorsed the initiative of its Scientific Council to prepare a report on separate opinions of constitutional courts. 2. For the present report, the Venice Commission invited Mr Christoph Grabenwarter, Ms Monika Hermanns and Ms Kateřina Šimáčková to act as rapporteurs. 3. The present report was prepared on the basis of contributions by the rapporteurs. 4. This report was examined by the Sub-Commission on Constitutional Justice on 13 December 2018 and adopted by the Venice Commission at its 117th Plenary Session (Venice, 14-15 December 2018). II. GENERAL REMARKS AND SCOPE 5. There is a growing trend among constitutional courts to allow separate opinions, although their implementation varies from one state to the next. Separate opinions can take the form of dissenting, but also of concurring opinions, i.e. expressing disagreement only with the reasoning of the final decision. Even in continental, civil law systems, separate opinions are no longer considered to be an exception to the rule of secrecy of individual votes.1 6. Among the Member States of the Council of Europe, 36 explicitly regulate separate opinions (including supreme courts in states in which there are no constitutional courts) and eleven do not permit them or have no relating provisions. 7. Among the Council of Europe Member States, in the majority
Load more

Recommended publications
  • European E-Justice Portal
    EN Home>Taking legal action>Legal systems - EU and national>National specialised courts National specialised courts In several Member States there are specialised courts, which deal with specific matters. Often such courts deal with disputes concerning administrative issues or in some cases with disputes between private persons or businesses. Several Member States have specialised courts for administrative matters, i.e. disputes between public authorities and private persons or firms regarding decisions by the public administration, such as a dispute on a building license, an authorisation to run a business or a tax assessment note. As regards disputes between private persons and/or businesses ("civil matters"), in some Member States there are specialised courts on employment matters. Please select the relevant country's flag to obtain detailed national information. Last update: 06/10/2020 This page is maintained by the European Commission. The information on this page does not necessarily reflect the official position of the European Commission. The Commission accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to any information or data contained or referred to in this document. Please refer to the legal notice with regard to copyright rules for European pages. Specialised courts - Belgium This section presents an overview of specialised courts in Belgium. Specialised courts All information concerning courts specialising in a particular field (employment law, commercial law) may be found in the ‘Ordinary courts’ section. Constitutional Court The Constitutional Court examines conformity of acts, decrees and ordinances with the Constitution. It also oversees proper division of powers between the federated entities and the federal State. It is a court consisting of 12 judges who ensure that the Constitution is observed by Belgian legislators.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation Greece En.Pdf
    ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONALE DES HAUTES JURIDICTIONS ADMINISTRATIVES INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE JURISDICTIONS Presentation form Name of the Court: Council of State Name of the President/Chief Justice: Aikaterini Sakellaropoulou Address:47-49, Panepistimiou Av. Phone number : (+ 30) 2132102098 Fax: (+ 30) 2132102097 Website: www.adjustice.gr E-mail: [email protected] 1. NATIONAL JUDICIAL ORGANISATION 1.1. General presentation of the judicial organisation and position of the administrative jurisdictional order In Greece there is a distinction between the administrative courts on the one hand and the civil and criminal courts on the other (Article 93 (1) of the Constitution). The organisation of the two jurisdictional orders follows the classic pyramidal form in this matter: at the top of the civil and criminal jurisdictions is the Court of Cassation; then the courts of appeal and the courts of first instance; finally, at the base of the pyramid, justice of peace. At the head of the administrative jurisdiction is the Council of State; then the administrative courts of appeal and the administrative tribunals of first instance. The third supreme court, the Court of Audits knows, sovereignly, certain specific administrative disputes (listed in Article 98 of the Constitution). Disputes of attribution are settled by a Special Supreme Court (Article 100 of the Constitution). 1.2. Key dates in the evolution of the administrative jurisdictional order and the control of administrative acts The creation of administrative tribunals was provided for in Greece as early as 1833. The Court of Audits was first established as an administrative body competent in certain administrative disputes submitted to it.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Judicial Independence and Impartiality of in the Council Of
    CCJE-BU(2017)11 Strasbourg, 7 February 2018 BUREAU OF THE CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUDGES (CCJE) Report on judicial independence and impartiality in the Council of Europe member States in 2017 Prepared by the Bureau of the CCJE following the proposal of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of abbreviations...............................................................................................................3 I. Introduction: scope, purpose and limitations of the report ............................................4 II. Overview of relevant European standards.......................................................................6 A. Functional independence: appointment and security of tenure of judges ..................6 B. Organisational independence: Councils for the Judiciary and the administration of courts.......................................................................................................................................7 C. Impartiality of judges, codes of ethics and professional conduct and disciplinary measures.................................................................................................................................9 D. The economic basis for the smooth functioning of the judicial system ....................10 E. Judges and media: public discussion and criticism of judges ...................................11 III. General issues concerning judicial independence and impartiality...........................13 IV. Country specific issues concerning
    [Show full text]
  • Members of the Court of Justice of the European Union
    Members of the Court of Justice of the European Union Caption: Curricula vitae of the Members of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Source: Court of Justice of the European Union. Court of Justice. Members. Presentation of the Members. [ON-LINE]. [Luxembourg]: Court of Justice of the European Union, [21.10.2010]. Disponible sur http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/Jo2_7026/. Copyright: (c) Court of Justice of the European Union URL: http://www.cvce.eu/obj/Members_of_the_Court_of_Justice_of_the_European_Union-en-8a53c934-14c5-40ee- bcca-a6da5d4457a5.html Publication date: 13/08/2011 1 / 10 13/08/2011 The Members of the Court of Justice of the European Union Name Curriculum vitae Vassilios Skouris Born in 1948; graduated in law from the Free University, Berlin (1970); awarded doctorate in constitutional and administrative law at Hamburg University (1973); Assistant Professor at Hamburg University (1972-77); Professor of Public Law at Bielefeld University (1978); Professor of Public Law at the University of Thessaloniki (1982); Minister of Internal Affairs (1989 and 1996); Member of the Administrative Board of the University of Crete (1983-87); Director of the Centre for International and European Economic Law, Thessaloniki (from 1997); President of the Greek Association for European Law (1992-94); Member of the Greek National Research Committee (1993-95); Member of the Higher Selection Board for Greek Civil Servants (1994-96); Member of the Academic Council of the Academy of European Law, Trier (from 1995); Member of the Administrative Board of the Greek National Judges' College (1995-96); Member of the Scientific Committee of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1997-99); President of the Greek Economic and Social Council in 1998; Judge at the Court of Justice since 8 June 1999; President of the Court of Justice since 7 October 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • Cercle Des Présidents – the Circle of Presidents – Präsidenten-Runde – Круг Председателей
    LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS – LIST OF PARTICIPANTS – TEILNEHMERLISTE – CПИCOК УЧACTНИКОВ Cercle des Présidents – The Circle of Presidents – Präsidenten-Runde – Круг Председателей ALBANIE – ALBANIA – ALBANIEN – АЛБАНИЯ Bashkim DEDJA, President The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Albania Sokol BERBERI, Judge (Gjykata Kushtetuese e Republikës së Shqipërisë) ALLEMAGNE – GERMANY – DEUTSCHLAND – ГЕРМАНИЯ Prof. Andreas VOSSKUHLE, President The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany Peter WEIGL, Director (Bundesverfassungsgericht) ANDORRE – ANDORRA – ANDORRA – АНДОРРА Juan Antonio ORTEGA DÍAZ-AMBRONA, The Constitutional Tribunal of the Principality of Andorra President (Tribunal Constitucional del Principat d’Andorra) Rosa Maria RUIZ GUERRERO, Officer- Counsel ARMÉNIE – ARMENIA – ARMENIEN – АРМЕНИЯ Prof. Gagik HARUTYUNYAN, President The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia Vladimir VARDANYAN, Head of (Конституционный Суд Республики Армения) International Treaty Department AUTRICHE – AUSTRIA – ÖSTERREICH – АВСТРИЯ Prof. Gerhart HOLZINGER, President The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Austria Brigitte BIERLEIN, Vice-President (Verfassungsgerichtshof der Republik Österreich) Prof. Christoph GRABENWARTER, Judge Britta ADAMOVICH-WAGNER, Secretary General Reinhild HUPPMANN, Chief of Protocol AZERBAÏDJAN – AZERBAIJAN – ASERBAIDSCHAN – Farhad ABDULLAYEV, President AЗEPБAЙДЖAН Rauf GULIYEV, Secretary General The Constitutional Court of the Azerbaijan Republic (Azerbaycan Respublikasinin Konstitusiya Mehkemesi) BELGIQUE – BELGIUM
    [Show full text]
  • Opinion on the Revision of the Constitution of Belgium
    Strasbourg, 20 June 2012 CDL-AD(2012)010 Opinion No. 679 / 2012 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) OPINION ON THE REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF BELGIUM adopted by the Venice Commission at its 91 st Plenary Session (Venice, 15-16 June 2012) on the basis of comments by Mr Christoph GRABENWARTER (Member, Austria) Mr Peter PACZOLAY (Member, Hungary) Ms Anne PETERS (Substitute Member, Germany) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2012)010 - 2 - I. Introduction 1. On 23 April 2012, after members of a political party belonging to the opposition brought the matter to the attention of the Council of Europe, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe asked the Venice Commission to provide an opinion on the recent constitutional amendment procedure in Belgium, more particularly concerning the amendment to Article 195 of the Constitution relating to the revision of the Constitution. 2. Mr Christoph Grabenwarter, Mr Peter Paczolay and Ms Anne Peters were appointed as rapporteurs. 3. The present opinion was adopted by the Venice Commission at its 91 st plenary session on 15-16 June 2012. II. The amendment procedure of the Belgian Constitution 4. In the Constitution promulgated on 7 th February 1831 the constituent power created a decentralised and unitary State in Belgium. This form of State existed until 1970 when a gradual and comprehensive State reform started. 1 The present amendment of the Constitution was aimed at opening the way for the sixth stage of the State reform that should also contribute to the solution of the governmental and political crisis of the country.
    [Show full text]
  • Venice Commission Hungarian Constitution.Pdf
    Strasbourg, 20 June 2011 CDL-AD(2011)016 Opinion no. 618 / 2011 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) OPINION ON THE NEW CONSTITUTION OF HUNGARY Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 87th Plenary Session (Venice, 17-18 June 2011) on the basis of comments by Mr Christoph GRABENWARTER (Member, Austria) Mr Wolfgang HOFFMANN-RIEM (Member, Germany) Ms Hanna SUCHOCKA (Member, Poland) Mr Kaarlo TUORI (Member, Finland) Mr Jan VELAERS (Member, Belgium) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2011)016 - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENT I. Introduction...................................................................................................................3 A. Background information........................................................................................3 B. Preliminary remarks..............................................................................................4 C. The object of the opinion.......................................................................................4 II. General remarks ...........................................................................................................5 A. Cardinal laws ........................................................................................................6 B. Rules of interpretation...........................................................................................7 III. Specific remarks...........................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • FASCISM, and the Doctrine of NATIONAL SOCIALISM Also by H
    FASCISM, and The Doctrine of NATIONAL SOCIALISM Also by H. R. Morgan: Fascism, The Total Society – Codex Fascismo Parts Two & Three Fascism, Integralism, and the Corporative Society – Codex Fascismo Parts Four, Five & Six American Radical Apostasy Fascism, and the Doctrine of National Socialism – Codex Fascismo Parts Seven & Eight The Codex Fascismo Collections of Poetry: Murdered Dreams (1993) Stark, Raving Mad (1994-95) The Long Walk Home (1997) Glimpses Through the Glass (1989) FASCISM, and The Doctrine of NATIONAL SOCIALISM Codex Fascismo Parts Seven and Eight Volume 4 Compiled, Edited, with Introduction and Commentary by H. R. Morgan Copyright © 2015 by H. R. Morgan. Library of Congress Control Number: 2015918312 ISBN: Hardcover 978-1-5144-2355-4 Softcover 978-1-5144-2354-7 eBook 978-1-5144-2353-0 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner. Special note: All translations and interpretations contained herein are the sole property of H. R. Morgan. All rights to this translation reserved Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only. Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock. Print information available on the last page. Rev. date: 12/09/2015 To order additional copies of this book, contact: Xlibris 1-888-795-4274 www.Xlibris.com
    [Show full text]
  • Hybrid Constitutional Courts: Foreign Judges on National Constitutional Courts
    Hybrid Constitutional Courts: Foreign Judges on National Constitutional Courts ROSALIND DIXON* & VICKI JACKSON** Foreign judges play an important role in deciding constitutional cases in the appellate courts of a range of countries. Comparative constitutional scholars, however, have to date paid limited attention to the phenomenon of “hybrid” constitutional courts staffed by a mix of local and foreign judges. This Article ad- dresses this gap in comparative constitutional schol- arship by providing a general framework for under- standing the potential advantages and disadvantages of hybrid models of constitutional justice, as well as the factors likely to inform the trade-off between these competing factors. Building on prior work by the au- thors on “outsider” models of constitutional interpre- tation, it suggests that the hybrid constitutional mod- el’s attractiveness may depend on answers to the following questions: Why are foreign judges appoint- ed to constitutional courts—for what historical and functional reasons? What degree of local democratic support exists for their appointment? Who are the foreign judges, where are they from, what are their backgrounds, and what personal characteristics of wisdom and prudence do they possess? By what means are they appointed and paid, and how are their terms in office structured? How do the foreign judges approach their adjudicatory role? When do foreign * Professor of Law, UNSW Sydney. ** Thurgood Marshall Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard Law School. The authors thank Anna Dziedzic, Mark Graber, Bert Huang, David Feldman, Heinz Klug, Andrew Li, Joseph Marko, Sir Anthony Mason, Will Partlett, Iddo Porat, Theunis Roux, Amelia Simpson, Scott Stephenson, Adrienne Stone, Mark Tushnet, and Simon Young for extremely helpful comments on prior versions of the paper, and Libby Bova, Alisha Jarwala, Amelia Loughland, Brigid McManus, Lachlan Peake, Andrew Roberts, and Melissa Vogt for outstanding research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • CONSTITUTIONAL COURT G 258-259/2017-9 December 4, 2017
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT G 258-259/2017-9 December 4, 2017 IN THE NAME OF THE REPUBLIC The Constitutional Court, chaired by President Gerhart HOLZINGER, in the presence of Vice-President Brigitte BIERLEIN and the members Markus ACHATZ, Eleonore BERCHTOLD-OSTERMANN, Sieglinde GAHLEITNER, Christoph GRABENWARTER, Christoph HERBST, Michael HOLOUBEK, Helmut HÖRTENHUBER, Claudia KAHR, Georg LIENBACHER, Rudolf MÜLLER, Johannes SCHNIZER and Ingrid SIESS-SCHERZ as voting members, in the presence of Claudia REITHMAYER-EBNER, member of the scientific staff, as the recording clerk Constitutional Court Freyung 8, A-1010 Vienna www.verfassungsgerichtshof.at G 258-259/2017-9 12/04/2017 has decided today after private deliberations in the proceedings initiated ex officio to review the constitutionality of the phrase "of different sex" in section 44 of the General Civil Code (ABGB, Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch), Collection of Laws (JGS, Justizgesetzsammlung) 946/1811, and of the Federal Act on Registered Partnership (EPG, Eingetragene Partnerschaft-Gesetz), Federal Law Gazette I 135/2009 as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 25/2015, pursuant to Art. 140 of the Federal Constitutional Law (B-VG, Bundesverfassungsgesetz) as follows: I. 1. The phrase "of different sex" in section 44 of the General Civil Code, Collection of Laws 946/1811, and the phrases "of same-sex couples" in section 1, "of the same sex" in section 2 and section 5 (1) item 1 of the Federal Act on Registered Partnership, Federal Law Gazette I 135/2009 as amended by Federal Law Gazette I 25/2015, are repealed as unconstitutional. 2. The repeal shall take effect as per the close of December 31, 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of European Private Law Upon the Mixed Legal Systems of Cyprus
    Journal of Civil Law Studies Volume 12 Number 1 2019 Article 5 10-9-2019 The Impact of European Private Law Upon the Mixed Legal Systems of Cyprus Nicholas Mouttotos Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jcls Part of the Civil Law Commons Repository Citation Nicholas Mouttotos, The Impact of European Private Law Upon the Mixed Legal Systems of Cyprus, 12 J. Civ. L. Stud. (2019) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jcls/vol12/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Law Studies by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE IMPACT OF EUROPEAN PRIVATE LAW UPON THE MIXED LEGAL SYSTEM OF CYPRUS Nicholas Mouttotos∗ I. Introduction ............................................................................... 96 II. Mixed Jurisdictions .................................................................. 98 A. Mixed Jurisdictions as a Model for Europe? ..................... 100 B. The Mixed Legal System of Cyprus .................................. 103 C. Historical Evolution ........................................................... 104 D. The Legal System .............................................................. 115 E. Contract and Commercial Law ........................................... 119 III. The Impact of EU Law ......................................................... 124 IV. Consumer Protection
    [Show full text]
  • Information to Users
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 UNNEGOTIATED TRANSITION . SUCCESSFUL OUTCOME: THE PROCESSES OF DEMOCRATIC CONSOLIDATION IN GREECE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Neovi M, Karakatsanis, B.A., M.A.
    [Show full text]