El acceso individual a la justicia constitucional en Lituania: el potencial dentro del modelo recientemente establecido del recurso constitucional individual
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5944/rdp.111.2021.31071Palabras clave:
Recurso constitucional individual; derecho a recurrir ante el Tribunal Constitucional; derechos humanos y libertades; justicia constitucionalResumen
El 1º de septiembre de 2019 entraron en vigor las enmiendas a la Constitución de la República de Lituania, que establecen por primera vez en el sistema jurídico lituano el derecho de una persona a recurrir directamente al Tribunal Constitucional. Lituania ha optado por el modelo limitado de recurso constitucional individual. La Constitución sólo permite el examen de la constitucionalidad de los actos sobre la base de las cuales se ha adoptado una decisión individual, lo que posiblemente constituya una violación de los derechos y libertades constitucionales de una persona física o jurídica. En consecuencia, el acceso individual directo al Tribunal Constitucional es una medida extraordinaria de defensa de los derechos y libertades constitucionales y sólo es posible tras el agotamiento de todos los recursos jurídicos efectivos, mientras que las decisiones judiciales adoptadas por los tribunales ordinarios no son objeto de control constitucional. En el artículo se llega a la conclusión de que las condiciones previas de una justicia constitucional individual efectiva se crean mediante los siguientes elementos del recurso de inconstitucionalidad. En primer lugar, una definición amplia de los sujetos capaces de interponer un recurso de inconstitucionalidad, que constituyen las personas físicas y todas las personas jurídicas de derecho privado y público. En segundo lugar, una definición amplia del objeto de la revisión, es decir, todas las leyes y otros actos que entran en el ámbito del control de constitucionalidad efectuado por el Tribunal Constitucional (actos normativos e individuales; todos los actos aprobados no sólo por el Parlamento, el Presidente, el Gobierno, sino también por referéndum). En tercer lugar, el efecto retroactivo inter partes de las sentencias adoptadas tras el examen de los recursos constitucionales individuales. En el artículo se llega a la conclusión de que, aunque todavía no se han formulado conclusiones sostenibles sobre la eficacia del mecanismo recientemente establecido, se espera que el recurso constitucional individual se convierta en una medida interna eficaz de último recurso para la protección de los derechos humanos y la libertad con respecto a las prácticas basadas en actos inconstitucionales.
Descargas
Citas
Arnold, R. (ed.), The Universalism of Human Rights. Dordrecht: Springer, 2013, 419 pages.
Arnold, R. The individual constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) in German Law with comparative references to Ukrainian Law, https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-JU(2018)016-e.
Beliūnienė, L, Žmogaus teisių apsaugos stiprinimas konstitucinio skundo institutu. Vilnius: Justitia, 2014, 222 pages.
Birmontienė, T., Danėlienė I. et al, Konstituciniai ginčai. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 2019, 637 pages.
Danėlienė, I. “Who is Entitled to the Right to Respect for Family Life Under the European Union Law?”, Teisė, 1100, p. 24-45.
Danėlienė, I., Petrauskas, R. et al (ed.). Lithuanian Constitutionalism. The Past and the Present. Vilnius: Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, 2017, 464 pages.
Jarašiūnas, E. Valstybės valdžios institucijų santykiai ir Konstitucinis Teismas. Vilnius: Teisinės informacijos centras, 2003, 318 pages.
Jarašiūnas, E., Sinkevičius, V. et al. (ed.), Lietuvos konstitucinė teisė. Vilnius: VĮ Registrų centras, 2017, p. 799.
Kinis, U. The constitutional complaint in the case law of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia. In Конституцiйний контроль i процеси демократичної трансформацiї у сучасному суспiльствi (матерiали мiжнародної конференцiї, присвяченої 20-iй рiчницi Конституцiйного Суду України, Київ, 7-8 жовтня 2016 року). Київ: BAITE, 2016, pp. 169-180.
Klopocka-Jasinska, M. On the right of public law entities to lodge a constitutional complaint in the light of the jurisprudence of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal. Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics, Vol 6:1, pp. 45-64.
Kūris, E. (ed.), Lietuvos teisinės institucijos. Vilnius: VĮ Registrų centras, 2011, 773 pages.
Miliuvienė J. Individualaus konstitucinio skundo įteisinimas ir pirmoji patirtis. Lietuvos teisė 2019: esminiai pokyčiai. 2020, pp. 19-28.
Pūraitė-Andrikienė, D. “Lietuvos individualaus konstitucinio skundo modelio privalumai ir trūkumai” (Advantages and Disadvantages of the Lithuanian Model of Individual Constitutional Complaint). Teisė, 2020, vol. 114, pp. 49-70.
Van Aaken, A. “Making International Human Rights Protection More Effective: A Rational-Choice Approach to the Effectiveness of Ius Standi Provisions”, Preprints of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods Bonn 2005/16, Bonn, 2005, 52 pages, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=802424#
Wiczanowska, H. The adequacy of the constitutional complaint as extraordinary means of human rights protection – a comparison of Polish and German sulutions. Torun Internatonal Studies, 2018, No. 1 (11), pp. 5-23.
Žalimas, D. The Individual Constitutional Complaint as an Effective Instrument for the Development of Human Rights Protection and Constitutionalism, 2015, at https://www.lrkt.lt/data/public/uploads/2016/07/2015-10-02-individualcomplaint-kiev.pdf.
Legal acts, travaux préparatoires
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November 1950, ETS No. 005.
Basic Law for the Rederal Republic of Germany, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/ (English translation).
Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. OG, 1992, No. 33-1014.
Constitution of the Republic of Poland, https://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm (English translation).
Constitution of Ukraine, https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/44a280124.pdf (English translation).
Organic Law on the Constitutional Court (Kongdom of Spain), https://www.tribunalconstitucional.es/es/tribunal/normativa/Normativa/LOTC-en.pdf (English translation).
Act No. 38/1993 on the Organizational Structure of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic and on the Proceedings brought to the Court and on the Position of Its Judges, https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5074.html (English translation).
Act on the Federal Constitutional Court (Federal Republic of Germany), http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Gesetze/BVerfGG.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6.
Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, https://www.us-rs.si/media/constitution.pdf (English translation).
Constitutional Act of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, https://www.usud.hr/sites/default/files/dokumenti/The_Constitutional_Act_on_the_Constitutional_Court_of_the_Republic_of_Croatia_consolidated_text_Official_Gazette_No_49-02.pdf (English translation).
Constitutional Court Act (Czhech Republic), https://www.usoud.cz/fileadmin/user_upload/ustavni_soud_www/Pravni_uprava/AJ/Constitutional_court_act_182_1993.pdf (English translation).
Constitutional Court Act (Republic of Slovenia), https://www.us-rs.si/legal-basis/statutes/?lang=en (English translation).
Constitutional Court Law of the Republic of Latvia, https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/en/2016/02/04/constitutional-court-law/ (English translation).
Constitutional Tribunal Act (Republic of Poland), https://trybunal.gov.pl/en/about-the-tribunal/legal-basis/the-constitutional-tribunal-act/archive (English translation).
Federal Law on the Constitutional Court (Federal Republic of Austria), https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10000245.
Law Amending Articles 106 and 107 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. TAR, 2019-04-02, No. 5330.
Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania. OG, 1993, No. 6-120.
Legal Notice 35 of 1993 entitled Regulations Regarding Practices and Procedures of the Court, as amended by Legal Notices 42 of 1993 and 129 of 2000. Giuseppe Mifud Bonnici, Constitutional Procedure Relative to Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, Malta: Midsea Books Ltd., 2004, pp. 163-6 (English translation).
Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania No. X-1264. OG, 2007, No. 77-3061.
Resolution of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania No. XIII-1596 of 25 October 2018. TAR, 29-10-2018, No. 17095.
The Act of 30 November 2016 on the Organisation of the Constitutional Tribunal and the Mode of Proceedings Before the Constitutional Tribunal (Republic of Poland), https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/7036/file/Poland_law_organisation_constitutional_tribunal_mode_of_proceedings_2016_en.pdf (English translation).
Draft Law on Amending Articles 106 and 107 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania No. XIIIP-431(2), https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAP/d8f62110408011e7b8e5a254f4e1c3a7?jfwid=sql10wggu.
Jurisprudence
ECtHR, Obermeier v. Austria, judgment of 28 June 1990, App. No. 11761/85.
ECtHR, Zumtobel v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, App. No. 12235/86.
ECtHR, Terra Woningen B.V. v. the Netherlands, judgment of 17 December 1996, App. No. 20641/92.
ECtHR, Běleš and Others v. the Czech Republic, judgment of 12 November 2002, App. No. 47273/99.
ECtHR, decision of 6 November 2003 on admissibility in Popov and others v Bulgaria, App. Nos. 48047/99, 48961/99, 50786/99 and 50792/99.
ECtHR, Sigma Radio Television Ltd v. Cyprus, judgment of 21 July 2011, App. Nos. 32181/04 and 35122/05.
ECtHR, Hasan Uzun v Turkey, judgment of 3 January 2013, App. No. 10755/13.
ECtHR [GC], Vučkovič and oths v Serbia, judgment of 25 March 2014, App. No. 17153/11, 17157/11.
ECtHR, Naït-Liman v. Switzerland [GC], judgment of 15 March 2018, App. No. 51357/07.
CCL, ruling of 18 April 1996, OG,
CCL, decision of 25 March 1998, https://www.lrkt.lt/lt/teismo-aktai/paieska/135/ta374/content.
CCL, ruling of 25 January 2001. OG, 2001, No. 10-295.
CCL, ruling of 12 April 2001. OG, 2001, No. 33-1108.
CCL, ruling of 4 March 2003. OG, No. 24-1004.
CCL, ruling of 28 March 2006. OG, 2006, No. 36-1292.
CCL, ruling of 13 December 2004. OG, No. 181-6708.
CCL, ruling of 4 April 2006. OG, 2006, No. 38-1349.
CCL, ruling of 6 June 2006. OG, 2006, No. 65-2400.
CCL, ruling of 11 January 2001, OG 2001, No. 5-143).
CCL, ruling of 5 September 2012. OG 2012, No. 105-5330.
CCL, ruling of 24 January 2014, TAR, 24-01-2014, No 478.
CCL, ruling of 11 July 2014, TAR, 11-07-2014, No 10117.
CCL, ruling of 9 July 2015, TAR, 09-07-2015, No. 11196.
CCL, ruling of 28 June 2016. TAR, 29-06-2016, No. 17828.
CCL, decision of 29 June 2016. TAR, 29-06-2016, N0. 17828.
CCL, ruling of 18 January 2018. TAR, 18-12-2019, No. 20438.
CCL, decision of 22 March 2018, https://www.lrkt.lt/lt/teismo-aktai/paieska/135/ta1805/content.
CCL, ruling of 15 February 2019. TAR, 15-02-2019, No. 2373.
CCL, ruling of 1 March 2019, TAR, 01-03-2019, No. 3464.
CCL, decision of 9 October 2019, No. KT27-A-S16/2019, https://www.lrkt.lt/lt/teismo-aktai/paieska/135/ta1969/content.
CCL, decision of 9 October 2019 No. KT28-A-S17/2019, https://www.lrkt.lt/lt/teismo-aktai/paieska/135/ta1970/content.
CCL, decision of 16 October 2019 No. KT33-A-S22/2019, https://www.lrkt.lt/lt/teismo-aktai/paieska/135/ta1976.
CCL, decision of 22 October 2019 No. KT36-A-S25/2019, https://www.lrkt.lt/lt/teismo-aktai/paieska/135/ta1981/content), etc.
CCL, ruling of 25 October 2019. TAR, 25-11-2019, No. 18747.
CCL, decision of 6 November 2019 No. KT43-A-S31/2019, https://www.lrkt.lt/lt/teismo-aktai/paieska/135/ta1989/content.
CCL, ruling of 25 November 2019. TAR, 25-11-2019, No. 18747.
CCL, decision of 11 December 2019, No. KT62-A-S48/2019, https://www.lrkt.lt/lt/teismo-aktai/paieska/135/ta2008/content
CCL, decision of 11 December 2019 No. KT63-A-S49/2019, https://www.lrkt.lt/lt/teismo-aktai/paieska/135/ta2009/content.
CCL, ruling of 18 December 2019. TAR, 18-12-2019, No. 20438
CCL, ruling of 9 March 2020, TAR, 09-03-2020, No. 5178.
CCL, decision of 2 July 2020, No. KT116-A-S108/2020, https://www.lrkt.lt/lt/teismo-aktai/paieska/135/ta2172/content.
CCL, decision of 3 September 2020, No. KT156-A-S143/2020 https://www.lrkt.lt/lt/teismo-aktai/paieska/135/ta2216/content.
CCL, ruling of 11 September 2020. TAR, 11-09-2020, No. 19129.
Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland, judgment of 24 February 1999, No. SK 4/98.
Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland, judgment of 16 November 2016, SK 45/09.
Supreme Court of Lithuania, ruling of 23 March 2012, civil case No. 3K-3-166/2012.
Supreme Court of Lithuania, ruling of 25 November 2019, criminal case No. 2K-7-174-303/2019.
Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, ruling of 30 December 2019, administrative case No. A-1552-525/2019.
Internet resources
Annual Report, 2017. Vilnius: Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, 2018, p. 138, https://www.lrkt.lt/data/public/uploads/2018/08/annual-report-2017-web.pdf. Annual Report, 2018.
Vilnius: Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, 2019, p. 118, https://www.lrkt.lt/data/public/uploads/2019/05/annual-report-web_.pdf.
Annual Report, 2019. Vilnius: Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, 2020, p. 120, https://www.lrkt.lt/data/public/uploads/2020/06/annual-report-2019-web_.pdf
European Commission for Democracy Through Law, Study No. CDL-AD(2010)039rev “On Individual Access to Constitutional Justice”, 27 January 2011 (adopted at the 85th Plenary Session in Venice, 17-18 December 2010), https://www.venice.coe.int/WebForms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2010)039rev-e.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.