Procedural Rights and Obligations of Parties in Constitutional Court Proceedings: International Experience and National Perspectives
Abstract
This article critically examines the procedural rights and obligations of parties involved in constitutional court proceedings through a comparative legal perspective. Drawing on the experiences of Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, and France, it analyzes key procedural safeguards such as access to case materials, legal representation, participation via video conferencing, amicus curiae submissions, and enforcement of judicial decisions. The paper also explores Uzbekistan’s constitutional framework, highlighting normative limitations and institutional gaps in guaranteeing party rights. The study argues that procedural rights are not merely formal tools but foundational instruments for constitutional justice, transparency, and the rule of law. Recommendations include expanding direct access to the Constitutional Court, enhancing participatory mechanisms, introducing procedural innovations like discovery and public oversight, and aligning national law with global best practices. These proposals aim to strengthen legal certainty and public trust in constitutional adjudication in Uzbekistan.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Hutchinson, T. (2010). The Doctrinal Method: Law as a Discipline. Legal Education Review, 20(2), 83–100.
Venter, F. (2000). Global Features of Constitutional Law. Springer.
Zweigert, K., & Kötz, H. (1998). An Introduction to Comparative Law (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Tushnet, M. (2005). Comparative Constitutional Law: Functionalism and Contextualism. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press.
Dworkin, R. (1978). Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press.
Kelsen, H. (2005). Pure Theory of Law (trans. M. Knight). Lawbook Exchange.
Sadurski, W. (2008). Rights Before Courts: A Study of Constitutional Courts in Postcommunist States of Central and Eastern Europe. Springer.
Kommers, D. P., & Miller, R. A. (2012). The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany (3rd ed.). Duke University Press.
Collins, P. M. (2008). Friends of the Supreme Court: Interest Groups and Judicial Decision Making. Oxford University Press.
Cappelletti, M. (1989). Access to Justice and the Welfare State. European University Institute.
Susskind, R. (2020). Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford University Press.
Krisch, N. (2006). The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law. Modern Law Review, 69(2), 183–216.
Harris, D. J., O'Boyle, M., & Warbrick, C. (2014). Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Jacobs, F. G., White, R. C. A., & Ovey, C. (2020). The European Convention on Human Rights (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
European Court of Human Rights. (2021). Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int.
Stone Sweet, A. (2000). Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe. Oxford University Press.
Kommers, D. P., & Miller, R. A. (2012). The Constitutional Jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany (3rd ed.). Duke University Press.
Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz (BVerfGG). (2021). Federal Constitutional Court Act, Sections 32, 35–37. Retrieved from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bverfgg/.
Kearney, J. D., & Merrill, T. W. (2000). The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 148(3), 743–855.
Hellman, A. D. (2004). Judicial Conduct and Disability Act: A System for Judicial Accountability. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 65(4), 707–754.
United States Code (2022). 28 U.S.C. § 351–364. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/ uscode/text/28/351.
Federal Constitutional Law of the Russian Federation on the Constitutional Court. (1994). Article 75. Retrieved from http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_3523/.
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. (2022). Regulations of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Article 41. https://www.ksrf.ru.
Roberts, P., & Zuckerman, A. (2010). Criminal Evidence. Oxford University Press.
HM Courts & Tribunals Service. (2022). Official Court Transcripts Guidance. https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service.
Ministry of Justice. (2021). Judicial Review: Proposals for Reform. https://www.gov.uk/government /consultations/judicial-review-reform.
Constitutional Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (2021). On the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan. https://lex.uz/docs/-5391934.
Hazard, G. C., & Tait, J. (1986). The Law of Evidence in the United States. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 34(Supplement), 101–118.
Marcus, R. L. (1990). Discovery Along the Litigation/Settlement Axis. Boston College Law Review, 39(3), 747–772.
Andrews, N. (2013). The Three Paths of Justice: Court Proceedings, Arbitration, and Mediation in England. Springer.
Susskind, R. (2020). Online Courts and the Future of Justice. Oxford University Press.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v12i6.6881
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2025 International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
https://ijmmu.com
editor@ijmmu.com
facebook.com/ijmmu
Copyright © 2014-2018 IJMMU. All rights reserved.