Izvorni znanstveni članak
Doctrine and practice of the so-called ‘parallelism of competence’ of the constitutional court and administrative court in the area of protection of ‘constitutional rights’ – some critical considerations-
Branko Babac
Marko Babić
Sažetak
The doctrine and practice of the so called ‘parallelism of competence’ of the Constitutional and Administrative Courts in the area of protection of ‘constitutional rights’ was subject to critical considerations in a case of constitutional court judge election by the Croatian parliament. This case gathered extraordinary public attention particularly, as it was claimed, because one of the chosen candidates did not fulfil all the constitutionally determined prerequisites which included a prescribed length of work experience in the legal profession (15 years), and a requirement of ‘outstanding achievement in the legal profession.’
Related to solving pertinent arguments, the aim is to demonstrate, accepting in principle and in practice Constitutional Court adjudication, that administrative courts are not responsible for reaching decisions on ‘constitutional law and freedoms’. Furthermore it would be constitutionally more just to quash and not repeal an administrative court judgement and this should be done on the basis of conflict of authority between the bodies of legislative and judicial power.
Ključne riječi
national leadership; constitutional-judicial monitoring; constitution making; parallelism of competence; constitutional judge; administrative jurisdiction; judicial monitoring of legality; quasi-administrative lawsuit; previous legal path; constitutional lawsuit; constitutional rights; discretional powers
Hrčak ID:
50320
URI
Datum izdavanja:
2.4.2010.
Posjeta: 1.575 *