The use of comparative constitutional interpretation method in the practice of Constitutional Court of Ukraine as a feature of modern constitutionalism transnationalization

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

THE USE OF COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION METHOD IN THE PRACTICE OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF UKRAINE AS A FEATURE OF MODERN CONSTITUTIONALISM TRANSNATIONALIZATION

Zabokrytskyi I.L,

Candidate of Juridical Sciences (PhD), Associate Professor of the Department of Constitutional and International law (Institute of Law, Psychology and Innovative Education of Lviv Polytechnic National University)

The article analyzes the use of comparative constitutional interpretation method in the practice of Constitutional Court of Ukraine as a feature of modern constitutionalism transnationalization. It is concluded that such use has not yet become widespread. If the use of international law is fairly commonplace and increasingly common in the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, then reference to foreign law or decisions of foreign courts is much less common. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine does not, for the most part, use such references in the texts of its acts - as a rule, they are found in the separate opinions of the judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, where they express their disagreement or additional arguments regarding the decisions and conclusions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Moreover, such links are increasingly starting to meet after 2014, although they had happened before. Also, there are several types of references, such as references to the general practice of foreign countries (limitation of tenure, consolidation of European integration norms, complicated procedure for constitutional amendments, as is common practice in many countries), other courts on certain issues (US Supreme Court position on political doctrine, decisions of British court, Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa and Supreme Court of Australia on judicial immunities, the German Federal Constitutional Court to protect constitutional values). It can be argued that the issues that have been the subject of research by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine are generally not unique and unparalleled in world practice. They are either based on universal constitutional values (protection of human rights, the rule of law and the principle of legal certainty), or standard constitutional practices generally accepted in the world or in a particular region (Europe and the EU Member States). Finally while the reference to the laws of foreign countries is broader, in relation to foreign courts, they refer mainly to those with significant legal and constitutional traditions.

Key words: Comparative Constitutional Interpretation, Constitutional Court of Ukraine, Trasnationalization of Modern Constitutionalism, Foreign Law Use in Constitutional Jurisprudence.

Забокрицький І.І.

Використання методу порівняльної конституційної інтерпретації в практиці Конституційного Суду України як ознака транснаціоналізації сучасного конституціоналізму

У статті проаналізовано використання методу порівняльної конституційної інтерпретації у практиці Конституційного Суду України як ознаки транснаціоналізації сучасної конституціоналізму. Зроблено висновок про те, що таке використання ще не набуло великого поширення. Якщо використання міжнародного права є досить звичним і все частіше зустрічається у рішеннях Конституційного Суду України, то посилання на закордонне право чи рішення іноземних судів зустрічається набагато рідше. Конституційний Суд України здебільшого не використовує таких посилань у текстах своїх актів, як правило, вони перебувають в окремих думках суддів Конституційного Суду України, де вони висловлюють свою незгоду або додаткові аргументи щодо рішень та висновків Конституційного Суду України. Більш того, такі посилання все частіше починають зустрічатися після 2014 року, хоча вони траплялися й раніше. Також є декілька видів посилань, наприклад посилання на загальну практику зарубіжних країн (обмеження строку перебування на посаді, консолідація норм щодо європейської інтеграції, ускладнений порядок внесення змін до конституції, як це є звичною практикою у багатьох країнах) та іноземних судів з певних питань (позиція Верховного Суду США щодо політичної доктрини, рішення британського суду, Верховного апеляційного суду ПАР та Верховного суду Австралії щодо судових імунітетів, Федерального конституційного суду Німеччини щодо захисту конституційних цінностей). Можна стверджувати, що питання, які були предметом дослідження Конституційного Суду України, як правило, не є унікальними чи такими, що не мають аналогів у світовій практиці. Вони засновані або на загальнолюдських конституційних цінностях (захист прав людини, верховенства права та принцип правової визначеності), або на стандартних конституційних практиках, загальноприйнятих у світі чи в певному регіоні (Європі та державах - членах ЄС), тоді як посилання на право зарубіжних країн більш широкі, стосовно іноземних судів вони стосуються переважно тих, які мають значні правові та конституційні традиції.

Ключові слова: порівняльна конституційна інтерпретація, Конституційний Суд України, транснаціоналізація сучасного конституціоналізму, використання закордонного права у конституційній юриспруденції.

Introduction. The principle of amicable attitude to the international law and its use by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in its activities is more or less a commonplace that arise primarily from the principle of pacta sunt servanda and the requirements of the Constitution of Ukraine, part 9 of Article 9 which indicates that existing international treaties, consent on the obligation which has been granted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is a part of the national legislation of Ukraine. In this way, international treaties are dual in nature, being not only the international obligations but also acts that are analogous to the national law. Instead, the interpretation of laws of other states or decisions of bodies of constitutional justice in the context of comparative constitutional interpretation is more complex and unusual. However, this is not the case for the use of foreign law and comparative constitutional interpretation, which is much less common. The questions of comparative constitutional interpretation have been the subject of studies of such scientists as S. Shevchuk [1], G. Halmai [2], C. Sauders [3], G. Sitaraman [4], M. Tushnet [5] and others. However, the comprehensive study of comparative constitutional interpration in the practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine has not been yet made.

Task setting. Thus, the study objective of this article is to examine the use of comparative constitutional interpretation method in the practice of constitutional court of Ukraine as a feature of modern constitutionalism transnationalization.

Research results. Basically, the use of comparative constitutional interpretation is observed in the separate opinions of judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine as a means of claiming their position. We can see a general increase in foreign practice in the Special Opinion of the judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Myronenko O. on the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional petitions of the 51 people's deputies of Ukraine on the official interpretation of the provisions of Article 10 of the Constitution of Ukraine on the use of the state language by state authorities, local self-government bodies and its use in the educational process in educational establishments of Ukraine (the case on the use of the Ukrainian language) [6] where Judge Myronenko refers to the principle of “changing interpretation” in the case law of the US Supreme Court and the possibility of correcting judicial errors. Similar general references are contained, for instance, in the Opinion of Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine M. Savenko. concerning the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional submissions of the 53 and 47 People's Deputies of Ukraine on the official interpretation of the provisions of part three of Article 103 of the Constitution of Ukraine (the case concerning the term of office of the President of Ukraine) [7], where Judge Savenko proposes to apply a teleological interpretation, that the limitation of his term of office or his election is widespread in the constitutional practice of many countries (Georgia, Belarus, Bolivia, Italy, Portugal, Russia, the USA, France, etc.) (p. 5). The world practice on this issue is analyzed in the separate opinion of Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Shapoval V. on the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional petitions of 53 and 47 People's Deputies of Ukraine on the official interpretation of the provisions of part three of Article 103 of the Constitution of Ukraine (case concerning the term of office of the President of Ukraine) [8]. In it, Judge Shapoval points to the constitutional custom of “two terms of the President” and the corresponding amendment to the US Constitution of 1951, which limited the term of office of the President of the United States to two terms, and such constitutional restrictions are generally accepted, and only some countries in Europe, such as Iceland, Italy, Malta, and France do not have appropriate restrictions, which is largely due to the fact that Malta, Iceland, and Italy are parliamentary republics (paragraph 4).

We see the appeal to foreign practice in the Opinion of Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Markush M. on the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional submission of the President of Ukraine on compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine (254k/96-VR) (constitutionality) of the Law of Ukraine “On Organization and Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine” (374-17) and the Rules of Procedure of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (547-17) [9]. In it, Judge Markush refers to the doctrine of the “political question” formulated in the 1962 Supreme Court decision, based on which “it is a political matter if: (a) it is possible to bring the issue to the competence of a political authority; b) it is not possible to settle the matter in the ordinary course of a court hearing; c) it is impossible to resolve the issue without classification of political actions; d) the decision of the court is possible only in the order of disrespect to the political authorities”(paragraph 22). As the Constitutional Court of Ukraine has occasionally referred to the doctrine of a political question in its decisions, the reference to the case law of the US Supreme Court seems quite relevant

However, the practice of referring to foreign law has become most widely used after 2014. Thus, the extremely broad application of such references is contained in the Special Opinion of Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine Shevchuk S. on the Opinion of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case of an appeal by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on the conclusion on the conformity of the draft law on amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine on inviolability of People's Deputies of Ukraine and judges to the requirements of Articles 157 and 158 of the Constitution of Ukraine [10]. In her dissenting opinion, Judge Shevchuk and in the view of Lord Denning in the case of Sirros v Moore “At least since 1613, if not earlier, it has been established in our law that no proceedings can be instituted against a judge for anything said or committed by him in the exercise of his competence. The words he utters are protected by absolute privilege. The orders he issues and the judgments he makes cannot be justified in civil proceedings against him” [11] and the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa in Telewatrix (Pty) Ltd v Matrix Vehicle Tracking v Advertising Standards Authority SA, where the court stated: “The decisive basis of the legal policy that underlies the immunity of the judicial corps is to protect its independence in order to ensure the administration of justice without fear <...> The threat of a lawsuit for damages will not unduly interfere with a speedy trial and resolution” [12] and the case-law of the Australian Supreme Court, which stated that “It is the right of citizens [to court] to settle civil disputes between citizens or between citizen and government, to administer criminal justice, which determines the need for an independent judiciary, which can be regarded with confidence as exercising its powers without fear or favor <...> it is the public interest in ensuring the independence of the judiciary that requires security not only against possible interference by governmental institutions but and also against retaliation from individuals who are frustrated or dissatisfied with court decisions” [13], as well as the restriction of judicial immunities, in particular the decision of the US Supreme Court, which stated that “Our precedents clearly indicate that [judicial] immunities do not apply in two categories of cases. First, the judge does not enjoy immunity from liability for non-judicial actions, that is, actions that he does not do as a judge <...> Second, the judge does not enjoy immunity in the case of actions that are judicial in nature but committed completely beyond his competence” [14]. As we can see, Judge Shevchuk referred to the decisions of the courts of the classical jurisdictions of the Anglo-Saxon family - the United States and Great Britain, as well as the judgments in Australia, as well as South Africa (which uses the comparative constitutional interpretation method very widely). These decisions are used as an argument for the role of judicial immunities, in particular in countries with the developed legal traditions and respect for the rule of law, and their importance for the independence of the judiciary.

Judge Kampo V. in his separate opinion dwells on the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional submission of the 52 People's Deputies of Ukraine on compliance with the Constitution of Ukraine (254k/96-VR) (constitutionality) of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Resolution on Amending the Regulations on Comprehensive Education Institution (1033-2009-p) [15] with the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada judgment concerning Ford v. Quebec (Attorney-General) [1988], stating that “language is so closely related to the form and content of expression that there can be no genuine freedom of expression through language unless there is a prohibition on using the language of one's choice. Language is not only a means of expression, but it is also a means by which individuals express their cultural identity” [16]. Judge Shevchuk quite minimalistically refers to the case-law of the Supreme Court of Canada, quoting the decision “R.v. Nova Scotia Pharmaceutical Society” (1992) - “The principle of fundamental justice is that laws cannot be too vague” [17], thus reinforcing his argument for the need for the principle of legal certainty.

An interesting example we can see in the Opinion of the judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine O. Pervomaiskyi on the Opinion of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional appeal of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on the opinion on the conformity of the draft law on amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine (concerning the strategic course of the state for the acquisition of full membership of Ukraine in the European Union and in the Organization of the North Atlantic Treaty No. 37) the requirements of Articles 157 and 158 of the Constitution of Ukraine [18]. In it, Judge Pervomaiskyi analyzes the constitutions of the various Member States of the European Union for the presence of provisions related to the European integration and the EU membership and argues that it would be appropriate to reflect in the Opinion of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine the existence of similar examples from other countries. With this aim, he refers to the relevant provisions of the constitutions of Montenegro, Bulgaria, Hungary, Croatia, Romania, Poland, Estonia, Portugal, France and Germany concerning the values of the EU, the partial transfer of sovereign powers, the course on the European integration. Judging by these examples, Judge Pervomaiskyi comes to the following conclusion - it was necessary to reflect that the mention in the text of the constitution of the strategic (geopolitical) course of the state for membership in the European Union and in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a traditional way of expressing the geopolitical and normative for the European countries (p. 10).

The issues of amendments to the Constitution, as well as foreign practices of such, were the subject of analysis in the Special Opinion of the judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine S.Shevchuk on the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional submission of the 51 People's Deputy of Ukraine on the official interpretation of the provision “at the next regular session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine” contained in Article 155 of the Constitution of Ukraine [19]. In it, Judge Shevchuk also refers to the general practice of some states where there is a complicated double vote, when changes are voted on for the first time by a qualified majority of Parliament and, for the second time, by the Parliament of a new convocation (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark) (paragraph 22), and the Constitution of Germany and the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany on restrictions for the legislator to amend the Constitution, which are intended to protect the constitutional order. In order to confirm the importance of the role of constitutional values, the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic is also cited (paragraphs 32-33).

Conclusions. Having analyzed the examples above, we can draw a number of conclusions regarding the application of foreign practice and decisions of foreign courts in the practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine

Firstly, such use has not yet become widespread. If the use of international law is fairly commonplace and increasingly common in the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, then reference to foreign law or decisions of foreign courts is much less common.

Secondly, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine does not, for the most part, use such references in the texts of its acts - as a rule, they are found in the separate opinions of the judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, where they express their disagreement or additional arguments regarding the decisions and conclusions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. Moreover, such links are increasingly starting to meet after 2014, although they had happened before. There are several reasons for this. While the Constitutional Court acts are the result of consensus among judges and reflect the position of the Court, judges are much freer to express their views in separate opinions. To strengthen the argument, judges refer to both foreign law and constitutional rules and decisions of foreign courts. In addition, more frequent appeals in recent years can also be attributed to the personalities of individual judges who have appeared within the Constitutional Court, especially from the scientific background.

Third, there are several types of references, such as references to the general practice of foreign countries (limitation of tenure, consolidation of European integration norms, complicated procedure for constitutional amendments, as is common practice in many countries), other courts on certain issues (US Supreme Court position on political doctrine, decisions of British court, Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa and Supreme Court of Australia on judicial immunities, the German Federal Constitutional Court to protect constitutional values)

Fourthly, it can be argued that the issues that have been the subject of research by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine are generally not unique and unparalleled in world practice. They are either based on universal constitutional values (protection of human rights, the rule of law and the principle of legal certainty), or standard constitutional practices generally accepted in the world or in a particular region (Europe and the EU Member States) - yes, the doctrine of the political question is habitually restrictive a mechanism for the activity of constitutional courts, which should not go beyond judicial activity and the exercise of the judiciary, and limitation of the term of office is standard practice.

Fifth, while the reference to the laws of foreign countries is broader, in relation to foreign courts, they refer mainly to those with significant legal and constitutional traditions, mainly the classical jurisdictions of the Anglo-Saxon legal family (the USA, the UK - less commonly Australia or Canada), from European ones - known by its traditions the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany. Although there are cases of references to “lesser-known” courts such as South Africa or the Czech Republic.

constitutional court ukraine transnationalization foreign

List of sources used: