نوع مقاله: علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار، گروه حقوق، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه دامغان، دامغان، ایران

2 دانشیار، گروه حقوق، دانشکدۀ علوم انسانی، دانشگاه سمنان، سمنان، ایران

چکیده

رابطۀ نظام‌های حقوقی ملی و فراملی از موضوعات اصلی مطالعات حقوق عمومی محسوب می‌شود. در واقع مسئلۀ کلیدی این است که در زمان تعارض بین مقررات داخلی و قواعد فراملی، تا چه حد دولت‌ها موظف‌اند از قوانین بین‌المللی پیروی کنند؛ به بیان دیگر، پرسشی که باید به آن پاسخ داد این است که آیا برتری کلی حقوق فراملی بر حقوق داخلی کشورها، حتی بین رژیم‌هایی که ارجحیت حقوق بین‌الملل را قبول کرده‌اند، تا چه حد ضمانت اجرا دارد و آیا استثناهایی برای این برتری، به‌خصوص در حوزۀ تضمین حقوق بنیادین، وجود دارد یا خیر. در این مقاله سعی می‌شود با مطالعۀ آرای برخی از نهادهای دادرسی اساسی کشورهای عضو اتحادیۀ اروپا و در راستای بحث «گفت‌وگوی محاکم» بین نهادهای مذکور و محاکم اتحادیۀ اروپا و همچنین با استناد به «دکترین محدودیت‌ها» و «محدودیت‌های متقابل»، پاسخ پرسش مطروحه را ارائه کنیم. 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The “Limits” and “Counter-Limits Doctrine” From The Point of View of “Dialogue Between Courts” of European Union and Institutions For Constitutional Justice of Member States

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Reza Jalali 1
  • Mohammad Abouata 2

1 Assistant Prof., Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, Damghan University, Damghan, Iran

2 Associate prof ., Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, Semnan University, Semnan, Iran

چکیده [English]

The relationship between national and supra-national or international legal systems is one of the most important issues of public law researches. Indeed the real question is that when there is a struggle between national and international law, until what point national legal system should follow supra-national rules. In other words, we must answer the question that until what point governments are obliged to respect supra-national legal system, specially about those States who recognize the priority of international law, and if there are exceptions to this rule, overall about the safeguard of fundamental rights. In this paper we will try to find the answer, through the analysis of some sentences issued by the constitutional courts of European Union member States, with attention to the issue of “Dialogue Between Courts” of European Union and Institutions For Constitutional Justice of this supra-national organization and about the “Limits” and “Counter-Limits Doctrine”.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • European Union
  • Constitutional Courts
  • Limits Doctrine
  • Counter-Limits Doctrine
  • Dialogue between Courts

1. فارسی

الف) کتاب‌ها

1. ضیائی بیگدلی، محمدرضا (1385)، حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، تهران: کتابخانۀ گنج دانش.

2. کدخدائی، عباسعلی (1380)، ساختار و حقوق اتحادیۀ اروپایی، چ اول، تهران: میزان.

3. موسی‌زاده، رضا (1392)، بایسته‌های حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، تهران: میزان.

 

ب) مقالات

4. فرخی، رحمت‌اله؛ رمضانی قوام‌آبادی، محمدحسین؛ زمانی، سید قاسم (1394)، «نقش دیوان اروپایی دادگستری در توسعۀ وحدت حقوقی اتحادیۀ اروپا»، فصلنامۀ پژوهش حقوق عمومی، دورۀ 17، ش 49، ص 83-57.

5. کدخدائی، عباسعلی (1380)، «نگرشی به ساختار دیوان دادگستری اروپایی و نقش آن در رون همبستگی اتحادیه»، مجلۀ دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دورۀ 51، ش 0، ص 106-87.

 

2. انگلیسی

A) Books

6. Kostoris, Roberto (2018), Handbook of European Criminal Procedure, Cham, Springer.

7. Ziccardi Capaldo, Giuliana (Ed.) (2018), The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence 2017, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

 

B) Articles

8. Kustra, Aleksandra (2015), “Reading the Tea Leaves: The Polish Constitutional Tribunal and the Preliminary Ruling Procedure”, German Law Journal, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 1543-1568.

9. Lacchi, Clelia (2016), “Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU”, German Law Journal, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp.1663-1700.

10. Martinico, Giuseppe (2009), “Preliminary Reference and Constitutional Courts: Are You in the Mood For Dialogue?”, Tilburg Institute of Comparative and Transnational Law,Vol. ???No. 10, pp. 2-29.

11. Millet, Francois Xavier (2014). “How much lenience for how much cooperation? On the first preliminary reference of the French Constitutional Council to the Court of Justice”, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 51, No. ???, Issue 1, pp. 195-218.

12. Millet, Francois Xavier, Perlo, Nicoletta (2015), “The First Preliminary Reference of the French Constitutional Court to the CJEU: Rvolution de Palais or Revolution in French Constitutional Law?”, German Law Journal, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 1471-1490.

13. Paris, Davide (2015), “Constitutional Courts as Guardians of EU Fundamental Rights? Centralised Judicial Review of Legislation and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU: European Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber), Judgment of 11 September 2014, Case C-112/13, A v B and others”, European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 11, Issue 2, pp. 389-407.

14. Pelin-Raducu, Ioana (2013), “Deferential Dialogues between the Court of Justice and Domestic Courts Regarding the Compatibility of the EU Data Retention Directive with (Higher?) National Fundamental Rights Standards”, Perspectives on Federalism, Vol. 5, Issue 3, pp. 1-23.

15. Pollicino, Oreste (2010), “The New Relationship between National and the European Courts after the Enlargement of Europe: Towards a Unitary Theory of Jurisprudential Supranational Law?”, Yearbook of European Law, Vol. 29, Issue 1, pp. 65-111.

16. Rangel De Mesquita, Maria José (2016), “The Court of Justice of the European Union”, in Moura Vicente, Dario (Ed.), Towards a Universal Justice? Putting International Courts and Jurisdictions Into Perspective, Leiden, Brill, 451-467.

17. Rodríguez-Izquierdo Serrano, Miryam (2015), “The Spanish Constitutional Court and Fundamental Rights Adjudication After the First Preliminary Reference”, German Law Journal, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 1509-1528.

18. Torres Perez, Aida (2014), “Melloni in Three Acts: From Dialogue to Monologue”, European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 10, Issue 2, pp. 308-331.

 

3. ایتالیایی

A) Articoli

19. Brunetti, Leonardo (2018), “Libertà religiosa e ordine pubblico: gli artt. 8 e 19 Cost. come norma generale inclusiva ed esclusiva”, Forum di quaderni costituzonali, No. 9, 1-31.

20. Calvano, Roberta (2016), “La Corte costituzionale e i “Controlimiti” 2.0”, Federalismi, No. 1, pp.1-19.

21. Catalano, Stefano (2013), “Il primo rinvio pregiudiziale del Conseil constitutionnel alla Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea. Contesto e ragioni di una decisione non rivoluzionaria”, Rivista AIC, No. 1, pp. 1-14.

22. Ferrante, Massimo Luigi (2018), “La sentenza n. 115/2018 con la quale la Corte costituzionale ha posto fine all’affaire Taricco: una decisione ferma ma diplomatica”, Diritti fondamentali, No. 2, pp. 1-29.

23. Losana, Matteo (2017), “Il caso “Taricco” e la funzione “emancipante” della nostra Costituzione”, Osservatorio costituzionale, No. 2, pp.1-18.

24. Repetto, Giorgio (2016), “La Cassazione sul caso Taricco, tra disapplicazione con effetti retroattivi in mala partem e mancata attivazione dei controlimiti”, Rivista AIC, No. 2, pp. 1-9.

 

4. آرای دیوان دادگستری اتحادیۀ اروپا

25. Court of Justice of the European Union, C-106-77, 9 March 1978.

26. Court of Justice of the European Union, C-399-11, 26 February 2013.

27. Court of Justice of the European Union, C-168-13, 30 May 2013.

28. Court of Justice of the European Union, C-105-14, 8 September 2015.

29. Court of Justice of the European Union, C-42-17, 5 December 2017.

 

5. آرای نهادهای دادرسی اساسی

30. Tribunal Constitucional, 86-2011, 9 June 2011.

31. Tribunal Constitucional, 26-2014, 13 February 2014.

32. Conseil Constitutionnel, 314p-2013, 4 April 2013.

33. Conseil Constitutionnel, 314-2013, 14 June 2013.

34. Corte Costituzionale, 24-2017, 23 November 2016.

35. Corte Costituzionale, 115-2018, 10 April 2018.