Priority Preliminary Rulings on the Issue of Constitutionality: Hazarding Interpretative Conflicts?
Basset, Antoine
Priority Preliminary Rulings on the Issue of Constitutionality: Hazarding Interpretative Conflicts? - 2012.
80
When the Constitutional Council allowed itself to examine laws according to how they are effectively enforced (QPC 2010-39 and 2010-52), it relied on a distinction between the interpretive work and the results of interpretation to defend criticism that it was encroaching on the role of ordinary judges. From a theoretical point of view, this argument appears to be fragile. This article argues that the restraint with which it has been employed to date does not follow logically. By examining the Constitutional Council’s prior practices, one may propose that its self-restraint derives mainly from the strategic constraints arising from its novel role in examining laws post-hoc, in a judicial landscape with no hierarchy amongst the three highest courts.
Priority Preliminary Rulings on the Issue of Constitutionality: Hazarding Interpretative Conflicts? - 2012.
80
When the Constitutional Council allowed itself to examine laws according to how they are effectively enforced (QPC 2010-39 and 2010-52), it relied on a distinction between the interpretive work and the results of interpretation to defend criticism that it was encroaching on the role of ordinary judges. From a theoretical point of view, this argument appears to be fragile. This article argues that the restraint with which it has been employed to date does not follow logically. By examining the Constitutional Council’s prior practices, one may propose that its self-restraint derives mainly from the strategic constraints arising from its novel role in examining laws post-hoc, in a judicial landscape with no hierarchy amongst the three highest courts.
Réseaux sociaux