دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران

نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق عمومی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

امروزه صلاحیت قاضی اساسی به نظارت بر اساسی بودن قوانین ختم نمی‌شود؛ آنها از صلاحیتی گسترده در حمایت از حقوق اساسی افراد برخوردار شده‌اند، به‌گونه‌ای که می‌توان آنها را قاضی حق‌های اساسی نامید. آیین دادخواهی اساسی که برای نخستین‌بار در نظام حقوقی آلمان پیش‌بینی شد، به ‌تمامی افراد جامعه «حق» شکایت از تمامی اشکال اقدامات مقامات عمومی (از جمله قوانین مجلس) را از حیث نقض حقوق اساسی خود، نزد مراجع دادرسی اساسی اعطا می‌کند. نوشتار حاضر پس از بررسی ظرفیت‌های کلی دادرس اساسی در حمایت از حق‌های اساسی و برشمردن مؤلفه‌های دادخواهی اساسی، با روشی تطبیقی به شرح تحولات صورت‌پذیرفته در فرانسه (پس از بازنگری سال 2008 قانون اساسی) و انگلستان (پس از تصویب قانون حقوق بشر در سال 1998) که به‌نظر می‌رسد به‌نحو چشمگیری از دادخواهی اساسی الهام گرفته‌اند، می‌پردازد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Fundamental Rights and Freedoms Constitutional Guarantees: Analyzing Constitutional Complaint in France and England

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammadhassan Kabgani 1
  • Vali Rostami 2

1 Ph.D. Student in Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Prof., Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Today, the jurisdiction of the constitutional judge does not limit to constitutional review of legislation; they have widespread competence in protecting the constitutional rights of individuals, so that they can be called judges of constitutional rights. The constitutional complaint that was foreseen for the first time in the German legal system, gives all persons the "right" to sue all forms of actions by public authorities (including the laws of the parliament) which violated their fundamental rights at constitutional tribunals. This paper examines the general capacities of the constitutional justice to support fundamental rights and enumerate the essential elements of the constitutional complaint and then describes the developments in France (after the 2008 constitutional amendments) and the United Kingdom (after the adoption of the human rights law in 1998), which seems to have been dramatically inspired by constitutional complaint by a comparative approach.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Declaration of Incompatibility
  • Priority Question of Constitutionality
  • Constitutional rights
  • Constitutional Complaint
  • Interpretive Jurisdiction
  • Weak Judicial Review
1. فارسی
الف) کتاب‌ها
1. راسخ، محمد (1396)، نظارت و تعادل در نظام حقوق اساسی، چ چهارم، تهران: دراک.
2. عباسی، بیژن (1394)، حقوق اساسی تطبیقی، تهران: دادگستر.
 
ب) مقالات
3. تقی‌زاده، جواد (1385)، «اساسی‌سازی حقوق فرانسه»، مجلۀ حقوق اساسی، سال چهارم، ش 6 و 7، ص 288-267.
4. جلالی، محمد؛ صداقت، قاسم‌علی (1394)، «بررسی مبانی اعتبار دموکراتیک نظارت اساسی»، فصلنامۀ دانش حقوق عمومی، ش 15، ص 143-123.
 
2. انگلیسی
A) Books
1. Abbasi, Bizhan (2015), Comparative Constitutional Law, Tehran, Dadgostar pub (In Persian).
2. Rasekh, Mohammad (2017), Check and Balance in Constitutional Law, 4th Ed, Derak pub (In Persian).
3. Rosenfeld, Michel (2005), "Constitutional Adjudication in Europe and United States: Paradoxes and Contrasts", In European and US Constitutionalism, ed. Georg Nolte. Cambridge University Press.
4. Tushnet, Mark (2011). "The Rise of Weak-Form Judicial Review", In Comparative Constitutional Law, eds: Tom Ginsburg and Rosaldin Dixon, Edward Elgar Publishing.
 
B) Articles
5. Bonner, David, Helen Fenwick & Sonia Harris-Short, (2003), "Judicial Approaches to the Human Rights Act", International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 52, No.3, pp.549–586.
6. Brinks, Daniel M., & Abby Blass,(2017), "Rethinking Judicial Empowerment: The New Foundations of Constitutional Justice", International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 15, No 2, pp. 296–331.
7. Currie, David P, (1986), "Positive and Negative Constitutional Rights", The University of Chicago Law Review,  Vol. 53, pp. 864–90.
8. Dannemann, Gerhard (1994), "Constitutional Complaints: The European Perspective", International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 142–153.
9. Ewing, Keith, (1999), "The Human Rights Act and Parliamentary Democracy" The Modern Law Review, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 79–99.
10. Fabbrini, Federico (2008), "Kelsen in Paris: France’s Constitutional Reform and the Introduction of a Posteriori Constitutional Review of Legislation", German L.J, Vol. 9, No. 10, pp. 1297–1312.
11. Grazia, Maria & Cristina Elías Méndez (2017), "Current Trends and Perspectives Regarding Constitutional Jurisdiction in the Member States of the Eu", Rivista di Studi Politici Internazionali, Vol. 80, No. 4, pp. 553-574.
12. Jalali, Mohammad, Sedaghat, GH A (2015), Analyzing the Foundations of   the Democratic Legitimacy of Constitutional Review, Quarterly Journal of Public Law Knowledge, Vol. 15, pp.123-143 (In Persian).
13. Karakamisheva, Tanja (2009), "Constitutional Complaint-Procedural and Legal Instrument for Development of the Constitutional Justice (Case Study–Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Croatia, Republic of Slovenia and Republic of Macedonia)", In A Paper Presented at the World Conference on Constitutional Justice, the Constitutional Court of South Africa and the Venice Commission, Cape Town, pp. 1–16.
14. Pasquino, Pasquale (2009), "New Constitutional Adjudication in France: The Reform of the Referral to the French Constitutional Council in Light of the Italian Model", INDIAN J. CONST. L, Vol. 3, pp. 105–17.
15. Patrono, Mario (2000), "The Protection of Fundamental Rights by Constitutional Courts-A Comparative Perspective", Victoria U. Wellington L, Rev,  Vol. 31, pp. 401–26.
16. Pfersmann, Otto, (2010), "Concrete Review as Indirect Constitutional Complaint in French Constitutional Law: A Comparative Perspective", European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 223–248.
17. Philippe, Xavier, (2012), "Constitutional Review in France: The Extended Role of the Conseil Constitutionnel through the New Priority Preliminary Rulings Procedure (Qpc)", Annales U. Sci. Budapestinensis Rolando Eotvos Nominatae, Vol. 53, pp. 65-94.
18. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter (2003), "Weak and Strong Judicial Review", Law and Philosophy, Vol. 22, No. 3-4, pp. 381–392.
19. Sweet, Alec Stone (2007), "The Politics of Constitutional Review in France and Europe", International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 69–92.
20. Tushnet, M, (2006), "Weak-Form Judicial Review and Core Civil Liberties", Harv. CR-CLL Rev,Vol. 22, No. 103, pp. 1–22.
21. Young, Alison L, (2002), "Judicial Sovereignty and the Human Rights Act 1998", The Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 61, No. 1,
22. Taghizadeh, Javad (2006), Constitutionalisation of French Law, Constitutional Law, Vol. 4, Issue 67, pp.267- 288 (In Persian).
 
C) Cases
23. Cooper v. Aaron BT  - US. 1958. 358 Supreme Court.
24. R. v. Lambert and Perry BT  - Camp. 1810. 2.
 
D) Reports
25. venice commission, (2002). "Human Rights Protection by Ordinary Courts Report", In Human Rights Protection Systems , 21–22.
26."Bundesverfassungsgericht - 7Annual Statistics 2017", http:// www. bundesverfassungsgericht.de/EN/Verfahren/Jahresstatistiken/2017/statistik_2017_node.html%20(March%2024,%202018)
 
E) Websites
27.Remedial Orders - UK Parliament https ://www .parliament .uk/business /committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/human-rights-committee/remedial-orders1/ (April 18, 2018).
28.Role - Joint Committee on Human Rights - UK Parliament https://www. parliament.uk /business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/human-rights-committee/role/ (April 18, 2018).
29.“Human Rights Judgments-Human Rights Joint Committee https:// publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201415/jtselect/jtrights/130/13006.htm (April 18, 2018).