10

résultat(s)

Mot(s)
Type de publication
Domaine politique
Auteur
Date

The role of constitutional courts in multi-level governance - United States of America: The Supreme Court

30-11-2016

This report looks at the Supreme Court of the United States, how it is organized and functions, the mechanisms by which cases reach the Court and how it treats treaties that have not been ratified by the United States government. The United States is a federated country. As such it has national governmental structures, which are outlined in its constitution, and state structures, which are outlined in the individual constitutions of each state. The United States Constitution is the second such document ...

This report looks at the Supreme Court of the United States, how it is organized and functions, the mechanisms by which cases reach the Court and how it treats treaties that have not been ratified by the United States government. The United States is a federated country. As such it has national governmental structures, which are outlined in its constitution, and state structures, which are outlined in the individual constitutions of each state. The United States Constitution is the second such document for the country, the first being the Articles of Confederation, which were in effect for the years 1781 to 1789. The Articles of Confederation had weak national structures and did not provide for a national executive or for any real national judiciary. These problems were addressed in the Constitution, which was drafted by the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and ratified by the states. The Constitution does not specify the structure of the federal judiciary that was to be adopted except for calling for the establishment of a Supreme Court and other inferior courts that Congress may establish. The Constitution does set out the areas of federal jurisdiction, and it also lists certain areas where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. The first federal congress established a system of lower federal courts that since 1789 have evolved into the current structure of district courts (trial-level courts), circuit courts of appeal (intermediate courts of appeal), and the Supreme Court (the court of final review). Over the past two centuries the procedures for these courts have also evolved, and Congress has whittled away at certain areas where the Supreme Court had exclusive original jurisdiction, and given that Court more control over the selection of cases that it may review on appeal. Because of the freedom that the Supreme Court has over its docket, it now renders full opinions on many fewer cases each year than it did forty years ago. The United States is also a common law jurisdiction. Many of the doctrines that govern federal jurisdiction and the practices of the Supreme Court have their origin in 'judge-made law'. In particular, the doctrine of judicial review is not mentioned in the text of the Constitution or the early judiciary acts, although history shows that it was not unfamiliar to the drafters of the Constitution. It is however, one of the most formable doctrines of the courts since it allows for the review of statutes to determine if they are compatible with the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s role in interpreting the United States Constitution and laws is paramount; however, due to the freedom granted to the Court to control most of its docket it only provides opinions in a selected few cases each year. This report was prepared by one of the speakers at a forum on 'The role of constitutional courts in multi-level governance', organised by the Comparative Law Library Unit of the European Parliamentary Research Service on 18 November 2016.

Auteur externe

DG, EPRS; EPRS, DG;

The German Federal Constitutional Court's ruling on the European Arrest Warrant

28-01-2016

The Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) has now published its December 2015 ruling in favour of a claimant who had lodged a constitutional complaint against the decision to allow his surrender to Italy on the basis of a European arrest warrant issued by the Italian authorities. In its ruling, the German Constitutional Court appears to be departing from its previous 'Solange' case law on the examination of EU acts against fundamental rights enshrined in the Basic Law (Grundgesetz).

The Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVerfG) has now published its December 2015 ruling in favour of a claimant who had lodged a constitutional complaint against the decision to allow his surrender to Italy on the basis of a European arrest warrant issued by the Italian authorities. In its ruling, the German Constitutional Court appears to be departing from its previous 'Solange' case law on the examination of EU acts against fundamental rights enshrined in the Basic Law (Grundgesetz).

Parliamentary Immunity in Italy

01-10-2015

This in-depth analysis was commissioned by the policy department on citizens' rights and constitutional affairs at the request of the JURI committee. It proposes to view the legal basis and practical developments of parliamentary privilege in Italy, providing an insight into the peculiarities of the country’s experience, with reference also to recent cases.

This in-depth analysis was commissioned by the policy department on citizens' rights and constitutional affairs at the request of the JURI committee. It proposes to view the legal basis and practical developments of parliamentary privilege in Italy, providing an insight into the peculiarities of the country’s experience, with reference also to recent cases.

Auteur externe

Marco Cerase

The US Supreme Court's landmark rulings of June 2015

16-07-2015

The founding fathers drafting the US Constitution designed the government so that each branch had a check on the others, in order that no single branch would have absolute power. The Supreme Court's main method of controlling the power of the legislative branch is judicial review. Under this principle, it has the power to examine laws and declare them unconstitutional. While the US Constitution holds that democracy is the appropriate process for change, the Court has now ruled, in Obergefell v. Hodges ...

The founding fathers drafting the US Constitution designed the government so that each branch had a check on the others, in order that no single branch would have absolute power. The Supreme Court's main method of controlling the power of the legislative branch is judicial review. Under this principle, it has the power to examine laws and declare them unconstitutional. While the US Constitution holds that democracy is the appropriate process for change, the Court has now ruled, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that 'individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right'. In the closing days of June, the Court issued three rulings which have made, and will continue to have a major impact not only on US citizens but also on the broader US political landscape.

Turkey's political situation before the general election

04-06-2015

Following the local and presidential elections of 2014, the ruling party (AKP) is increasing its influence over the political landscape and fostering its agenda of a more presidential regime. In this context, the outcome of the 7 June general election will be crucial.

Following the local and presidential elections of 2014, the ruling party (AKP) is increasing its influence over the political landscape and fostering its agenda of a more presidential regime. In this context, the outcome of the 7 June general election will be crucial.

German Constitutional Court decisions on EU anti-crisis measures

24-07-2014

In response to the financial crisis in the EU, a permanent crisis mechanism – the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) – was adopted by the euro area Member States. A number of cases, lodged with the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), aimed at blocking Germany's participation. The BVerfG has established four requirements for German participation in rescue packages and fiscal stability mechanisms: observance of the Bundestag's budgetary autonomy, prior consent of the Bundestag to participation ...

In response to the financial crisis in the EU, a permanent crisis mechanism – the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) – was adopted by the euro area Member States. A number of cases, lodged with the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), aimed at blocking Germany's participation. The BVerfG has established four requirements for German participation in rescue packages and fiscal stability mechanisms: observance of the Bundestag's budgetary autonomy, prior consent of the Bundestag to participation in rescue packages, influence of the Bundestag on spending of funds and limited participation in large rescue packages.

The German Constitutional Court's ruling on the ECB's bond buying decision

10-02-2014

On 6 September 2012, the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) confirmed its President, Mario Draghi’s announcement that the ECB would purchase government bonds on secondary markets, known as Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT). Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) was called upon to consider the legality of OMT within a case on the constitutionality of German ratification of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM).

On 6 September 2012, the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) confirmed its President, Mario Draghi’s announcement that the ECB would purchase government bonds on secondary markets, known as Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT). Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) was called upon to consider the legality of OMT within a case on the constitutionality of German ratification of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM).

Opinions divergentes au sein des cours suprêmes des États membres

15-11-2012

La présente étude examine les avantages et les inconvénients de la pratique d'opinions individuelles. Après une analyse de sa diffusion au sein des cours suprêmes et constitutionnelles des États membres, elle décrit la pratique des tribunaux internationaux. Enfin, elle étudie également les raisons pour lesquelles la publication d'opinions individuelles pourrait, ou ne pourrait pas, convenir à la CJUE.

La présente étude examine les avantages et les inconvénients de la pratique d'opinions individuelles. Après une analyse de sa diffusion au sein des cours suprêmes et constitutionnelles des États membres, elle décrit la pratique des tribunaux internationaux. Enfin, elle étudie également les raisons pour lesquelles la publication d'opinions individuelles pourrait, ou ne pourrait pas, convenir à la CJUE.

Démocratie européenne, identité constitutionnelle et souveraineté: quelques répercussions de l’arrêt de la Cour constitutionnelle allemande sur Lisbonne dans la doctrine constitutionnelle européenne

17-05-2010

Sans surprise, le jugement de la Cour constitutionnelle fédérale allemande sur la ratification du traité de Lisbonne a engendré un débat animé à la fois dans le large public et dans le milieu universitaire. Cette étude évalue des différentes interprétations universitaires du verdict. Elle se concentre sur les trois questions constitutionnelles soulevées par la Cour : la démocratie au niveau européen, l'identité constitutionnelle des États membres et à la souveraineté politique. Les initiatives récentes ...

Sans surprise, le jugement de la Cour constitutionnelle fédérale allemande sur la ratification du traité de Lisbonne a engendré un débat animé à la fois dans le large public et dans le milieu universitaire. Cette étude évalue des différentes interprétations universitaires du verdict. Elle se concentre sur les trois questions constitutionnelles soulevées par la Cour : la démocratie au niveau européen, l'identité constitutionnelle des États membres et à la souveraineté politique. Les initiatives récentes du Parlement européen et des nouvelles dispositions introduites par le traité de Lisbonne sont examinées en raison des arguments avancés dans la doctrine constitutionnelle européenne.

Constitutional Courrts in the Member States of the European Union

15-03-1995

Auteur externe

Ana Rosa Marin Blesa, Stephen Ollerenshaw and Nickolaos Lazaridis

Evénements à venir

28-01-2020
Western Balkans: A rocky road to enlargement
Autre événement -
EPRS
29-01-2020
Where all students can succeed: Analysing the latest OECD PISA results
Autre événement -
EPRS
29-01-2020
The Future of Artificial Intelligence for Europe
Atelier -
STOA

Partenaires

Restez connectés

email update imageSystème d'alertes email

Le système d'alertes email, qui envoie directement les dernières informations à votre adresse électronique, vous permet de suivre toutes les personnes et tous les événements liés au Parlement. Ceci inclut les dernières nouvelles des députés, les services d'information ou le Think Tank.

Le système est accessible partout sur le site du Parlement. Pour vous abonner et recevoir les notifications du Think Tank, il suffit de communiquer votre adresse email, de sélectionner le thème qui vous intéresse, d'indiquer la fréquence (quotidienne, hebdomadaire ou mensuelle) et de confirmer votre enregistrement en cliquant sur le lien envoyé par email.

RSS imageFlux RSS

Ne manquez aucune information ou mise à jour du site du Parlement européen grâce à notre flux RSS.

Veuillez cliquer sur le lien ci-dessous afin de configurer votre flux.