CDL-AD(2021)001 Strasbourg, 22 February 2021 Or. Engl. Opinion No. 1004 / 2020 EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) REVISED REPORT ON INDIVIDUAL ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE Adopted by the Venice Commission on 11 December 2020 at its 125th online Plenary Session (11-12 December 2020) on the basis of comments by Mr Gagik HARUTYUNYAN (Member, Armenia) Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Member, Germany) Mr Peter PACZOLAY (Honorary President) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2021)001 - 2 - TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GENERAL REMARKS .............................................................................................. 4 II. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4 III. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.................................................................................. 5 A. Evolution of constitutional justice ............................................................................... 5 B. Two types of constitutional review: diffuse vs. concentrated ...................................... 6 C. Recent developments and trends .............................................................................. 7 IV. TYPES OF INDIVIDUAL ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ....................... 9 A. Direct access ............................................................................................................. 9 1. Individual complaints ......................................................................................... 10 2. Actio popularis ................................................................................................... 12 B. Indirect access ........................................................................................................ 13 1. Ordinary courts .................................................................................................. 13 2. Ombudsman Institutions .................................................................................... 17 C. Mixed solutions ........................................................................................................ 18 V. RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESS ................................................................................ 19 A. Conditions for opening proceedings (“filters”) .......................................................... 20 1. Time-limits for applications ................................................................................ 20 2. Obligation to be legally represented .................................................................. 21 3. Court fees .......................................................................................................... 21 4. Written form ....................................................................................................... 22 5. Manifestly ill-founded, frivolous, abusive or repetitive applications..................... 22 6. Exhaustion of remedies ..................................................................................... 23 7. Direct and immediate harm ............................................................................... 23 8. Redressability .................................................................................................... 24 9. Filters for preliminary requests .......................................................................... 24 10. Joinder of similar cases ..................................................................................... 24 B. Selection of cases by constitutional courts .............................................................. 25 C. Adjudication in chambers......................................................................................... 26 D. Appeals against inadmissibility decisions ................................................................ 27 VI. REMIT OF CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE ............................................................... 28 A. Substantive rights .................................................................................................... 28 B. Procedural safeguards ............................................................................................ 30 1. Adversariality ..................................................................................................... 30 2. Publicity ............................................................................................................. 31 3. Oral proceedings ............................................................................................... 31 C. Scope of review ....................................................................................................... 32 1. Interpreting the norm under review .................................................................... 33 2. Extension of norms under review ...................................................................... 34 3. Extension of the circle of grievances ................................................................. 35 D. Discontinuation of the proceedings .......................................................................... 35 1. Discontinuation if the petition is withdrawn ........................................................ 35 2. Discontinuation if the challenged act loses validity ............................................ 36 3. Time-limits for taking the decision...................................................................... 37 VII. DECISIONS............................................................................................................. 37 A. Interim measures ..................................................................................................... 37 1. Injunctions and suspensions.............................................................................. 37 2. Stay of ordinary proceedings ............................................................................. 38 B. Final decisions ......................................................................................................... 39 1. Effects ratione personae .................................................................................... 39 2. Effects ratione temporis ..................................................................................... 45 - 3 - CDL-AD(2021)001 3. Effects ratione materiae ..................................................................................... 48 4. Finality of constitutional rulings .......................................................................... 49 VIII. THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS .................................................... 50 A. Interpretation in conformity with the Convention ...................................................... 51 B. The ECtHR as an alternative to constitutional review .............................................. 51 1. Exhaustion of remedies ..................................................................................... 51 2. Right to an effective remedy: Full constitutional complaints ............................... 52 3. Full constitutional complaints as a national “filter” .............................................. 54 4. The ECHR as an alternative to constitutional review ......................................... 56 C. The right to a fair trial under the ECHR .................................................................... 57 D. Reopening of cases at the national level ................................................................. 59 IX. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 61 CDL-AD(2021)001 - 4 - I. GENERAL REMARKS 1. Over the past 70 years, a fundamental shift in the importance of constitutional protection of human rights has occurred in Europe and beyond. Respect for human rights is now considered to be an essential part of any democratic society.1 As a result, mechanisms that allow individuals to directly or indirectly invoke these rights conferred upon them by constitutions are becoming increasingly important. This report provides an overview of the ways in which individuals may access constitutional courts in order to adjudicate violations of their human rights in the Venice Commission’s member and observer States.2 It does so in order to contribute to a better understanding of the great variety of adopted solutions.3 2. The report draws on the constitutions and legal texts contained in the Venice Commission’s CODICES database.4 The Venice Commission is grateful to its liaison officers for their contribution to the e-Bulletin on Constitutional Case-law, the CODICES database as well as to the updating of the present report. 3. This report is divided into nine sections. Following some general and introductory remarks (Sections I and II), Section III clarifies the general framework of this comparative analysis by offering an overview of the historical background and the evolution of constitutional review as well as on the different types of constitutional review and recent trends and developments. Section IV analyses the different types of access to constitutional review and identifies the different actors, who may initiate constitutional review proceedings. Section V describes restrictions of access and their role in balancing individual access with the risk of overburdening constitutional courts. Section VI analyses the remit of constitutional justice, including the rights protected, the different