Loading…

The Ambit of Judicial Review by the German Federal Constitutional Court in the Examination of Judicial Decision -- A Model for Georgian Jurisdiction?

This paper presents the thesis that the introduction of a constitutional complaint against court judgments into the Georgian legal system will have multiple benign effects on the young democracy in the Caucasus. This applies in particular to improved of legal protection of the citizens, & also t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Verfassung und Recht in Übersee 2007-01, Vol.40 (3), p.290-313
Main Authors: Kublaschvili, Konstantin, Schubert, Bjorn G
Format: Article
Language:ger
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 313
container_issue 3
container_start_page 290
container_title Verfassung und Recht in Übersee
container_volume 40
creator Kublaschvili, Konstantin
Schubert, Bjorn G
description This paper presents the thesis that the introduction of a constitutional complaint against court judgments into the Georgian legal system will have multiple benign effects on the young democracy in the Caucasus. This applies in particular to improved of legal protection of the citizens, & also to lending substance, in the jurisprudence of lower-instance specialized courts, to the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution,. In addition, there is a readjustment of the actual significance of the Georgian Constitutional Court. Although the Georgian constitution does provide for a constitutional complaint as a matter of principle, it is only admissible against so-called normative acts, which have been conclusively defined in a catalogue in the law concerning normative acts. This does not cover judicial decisions, although the motives of the constitution markers for this are not quite clear & for good reason give rise to the suggestions made here. The core of the argument is that the application of a three-phased scale of examination developed by the German Federal Constitutional Court achieves an effective ambit of control which respects the requirements of specialized jurisdiction & also guarantees that the working capacity of the Constitutional Court is not overburdened. This criteria for this are guided by the principle of proportionality: the more incisively a judgment by a specialist lower court affects the basic sphere of rights of the defeated party, the stricter the requirements to be made for the justification of this intervention & the wider the scope for subsequent review on grounds of constitutional law. Adapted from the source document.
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_59807000</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>59807000</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_miscellaneous_598070003</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNj89uwjAMh3NgEmjjHXziVin8aQsnhBgMVdpl4o7S1gWjNGFxwrYH2fsurXbZbb5Y9vfzJ3kgRjKVWZLPltlQjJmvMlaaLaZyPhLfxwvCpi3Jg22gCDVVpDS84Z3wA8ov8JG_oGuVgT3W6CLcWsOefPBkTT8G54FMH919qpaM6tAf4TNWxN0ySWADr7ZGDY11UW3dmaK8CI44hrvL9ZN4aJRmHP_2RzHZ747bQ3Jz9j0g-1NLXKHWyqANfEpXS5nHr-b_Dv4Aq6lZ6A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>59807000</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Ambit of Judicial Review by the German Federal Constitutional Court in the Examination of Judicial Decision -- A Model for Georgian Jurisdiction?</title><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>JSTOR Journals and Primary Sources</source><creator>Kublaschvili, Konstantin ; Schubert, Bjorn G</creator><creatorcontrib>Kublaschvili, Konstantin ; Schubert, Bjorn G</creatorcontrib><description>This paper presents the thesis that the introduction of a constitutional complaint against court judgments into the Georgian legal system will have multiple benign effects on the young democracy in the Caucasus. This applies in particular to improved of legal protection of the citizens, &amp; also to lending substance, in the jurisprudence of lower-instance specialized courts, to the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution,. In addition, there is a readjustment of the actual significance of the Georgian Constitutional Court. Although the Georgian constitution does provide for a constitutional complaint as a matter of principle, it is only admissible against so-called normative acts, which have been conclusively defined in a catalogue in the law concerning normative acts. This does not cover judicial decisions, although the motives of the constitution markers for this are not quite clear &amp; for good reason give rise to the suggestions made here. The core of the argument is that the application of a three-phased scale of examination developed by the German Federal Constitutional Court achieves an effective ambit of control which respects the requirements of specialized jurisdiction &amp; also guarantees that the working capacity of the Constitutional Court is not overburdened. This criteria for this are guided by the principle of proportionality: the more incisively a judgment by a specialist lower court affects the basic sphere of rights of the defeated party, the stricter the requirements to be made for the justification of this intervention &amp; the wider the scope for subsequent review on grounds of constitutional law. Adapted from the source document.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0506-7286</identifier><language>ger</language><subject>Constitutions ; Courts ; Decision Making ; Democracy ; Federal Republic of Germany</subject><ispartof>Verfassung und Recht in Übersee, 2007-01, Vol.40 (3), p.290-313</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kublaschvili, Konstantin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schubert, Bjorn G</creatorcontrib><title>The Ambit of Judicial Review by the German Federal Constitutional Court in the Examination of Judicial Decision -- A Model for Georgian Jurisdiction?</title><title>Verfassung und Recht in Übersee</title><description>This paper presents the thesis that the introduction of a constitutional complaint against court judgments into the Georgian legal system will have multiple benign effects on the young democracy in the Caucasus. This applies in particular to improved of legal protection of the citizens, &amp; also to lending substance, in the jurisprudence of lower-instance specialized courts, to the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution,. In addition, there is a readjustment of the actual significance of the Georgian Constitutional Court. Although the Georgian constitution does provide for a constitutional complaint as a matter of principle, it is only admissible against so-called normative acts, which have been conclusively defined in a catalogue in the law concerning normative acts. This does not cover judicial decisions, although the motives of the constitution markers for this are not quite clear &amp; for good reason give rise to the suggestions made here. The core of the argument is that the application of a three-phased scale of examination developed by the German Federal Constitutional Court achieves an effective ambit of control which respects the requirements of specialized jurisdiction &amp; also guarantees that the working capacity of the Constitutional Court is not overburdened. This criteria for this are guided by the principle of proportionality: the more incisively a judgment by a specialist lower court affects the basic sphere of rights of the defeated party, the stricter the requirements to be made for the justification of this intervention &amp; the wider the scope for subsequent review on grounds of constitutional law. Adapted from the source document.</description><subject>Constitutions</subject><subject>Courts</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Democracy</subject><subject>Federal Republic of Germany</subject><issn>0506-7286</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><recordid>eNqNj89uwjAMh3NgEmjjHXziVin8aQsnhBgMVdpl4o7S1gWjNGFxwrYH2fsurXbZbb5Y9vfzJ3kgRjKVWZLPltlQjJmvMlaaLaZyPhLfxwvCpi3Jg22gCDVVpDS84Z3wA8ov8JG_oGuVgT3W6CLcWsOefPBkTT8G54FMH919qpaM6tAf4TNWxN0ySWADr7ZGDY11UW3dmaK8CI44hrvL9ZN4aJRmHP_2RzHZ747bQ3Jz9j0g-1NLXKHWyqANfEpXS5nHr-b_Dv4Aq6lZ6A</recordid><startdate>20070101</startdate><enddate>20070101</enddate><creator>Kublaschvili, Konstantin</creator><creator>Schubert, Bjorn G</creator><scope>7UB</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070101</creationdate><title>The Ambit of Judicial Review by the German Federal Constitutional Court in the Examination of Judicial Decision -- A Model for Georgian Jurisdiction?</title><author>Kublaschvili, Konstantin ; Schubert, Bjorn G</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_miscellaneous_598070003</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>ger</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Constitutions</topic><topic>Courts</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Democracy</topic><topic>Federal Republic of Germany</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kublaschvili, Konstantin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schubert, Bjorn G</creatorcontrib><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Verfassung und Recht in Übersee</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kublaschvili, Konstantin</au><au>Schubert, Bjorn G</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Ambit of Judicial Review by the German Federal Constitutional Court in the Examination of Judicial Decision -- A Model for Georgian Jurisdiction?</atitle><jtitle>Verfassung und Recht in Übersee</jtitle><date>2007-01-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>290</spage><epage>313</epage><pages>290-313</pages><issn>0506-7286</issn><abstract>This paper presents the thesis that the introduction of a constitutional complaint against court judgments into the Georgian legal system will have multiple benign effects on the young democracy in the Caucasus. This applies in particular to improved of legal protection of the citizens, &amp; also to lending substance, in the jurisprudence of lower-instance specialized courts, to the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution,. In addition, there is a readjustment of the actual significance of the Georgian Constitutional Court. Although the Georgian constitution does provide for a constitutional complaint as a matter of principle, it is only admissible against so-called normative acts, which have been conclusively defined in a catalogue in the law concerning normative acts. This does not cover judicial decisions, although the motives of the constitution markers for this are not quite clear &amp; for good reason give rise to the suggestions made here. The core of the argument is that the application of a three-phased scale of examination developed by the German Federal Constitutional Court achieves an effective ambit of control which respects the requirements of specialized jurisdiction &amp; also guarantees that the working capacity of the Constitutional Court is not overburdened. This criteria for this are guided by the principle of proportionality: the more incisively a judgment by a specialist lower court affects the basic sphere of rights of the defeated party, the stricter the requirements to be made for the justification of this intervention &amp; the wider the scope for subsequent review on grounds of constitutional law. Adapted from the source document.</abstract></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0506-7286
ispartof Verfassung und Recht in Übersee, 2007-01, Vol.40 (3), p.290-313
issn 0506-7286
language ger
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_59807000
source Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; JSTOR Journals and Primary Sources
subjects Constitutions
Courts
Decision Making
Democracy
Federal Republic of Germany
title The Ambit of Judicial Review by the German Federal Constitutional Court in the Examination of Judicial Decision -- A Model for Georgian Jurisdiction?
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T18%3A38%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Ambit%20of%20Judicial%20Review%20by%20the%20German%20Federal%20Constitutional%20Court%20in%20the%20Examination%20of%20Judicial%20Decision%20--%20A%20Model%20for%20Georgian%20Jurisdiction?&rft.jtitle=Verfassung%20und%20Recht%20in%20%C3%9Cbersee&rft.au=Kublaschvili,%20Konstantin&rft.date=2007-01-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=290&rft.epage=313&rft.pages=290-313&rft.issn=0506-7286&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E59807000%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-proquest_miscellaneous_598070003%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=59807000&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true