CONSTITUTIONAL PROCEEDINGS ON THE NULLIFIED OR INVALIDATED DISPUTED ACT

Abstract

Human rights protection standards significantly depend upon the institutionally independent body supervising the government through the constitutional review of legal acts. This article reviews the significance of continuation of proceedings on the basis of nullified or invalidated norm, as the court’s authority to exercise constitutional justice without procedural barriers. In order to protect human rights, the mentioned mechanism has the preventive purposes, since the Parliament is not allowed to pass the law, which is similar to that of the unconstitutional norm.

In many cases procedure rules aim to reduce the Court’s caseload, which is necessary for its effective functioning. However, it is important not to cross the line, beyond which the procedural issues will hamper protection of human rights through constitutional proceedings.

The case when government is left with the leverage for manipulation and the Constitutional Court is deprived of the discretionary power in the process of constitutional justice is more dangerous. In particular, the Parliament and executive authorities still have an opportunity to annul norm until the Constitutional Court admits the claim and by doing so to automatically suspend constitutional
proceedings.

The article reviews the standards established in the case law of the Constitutional Court of Georgia, in particular, cases when the proceedings on the nullified or invalidated norm continues. Through comparative analysis we will review the models adopted by various countries regarding the determination of the constitutionality of inactive norms.