Search

This article examines the jurisdictional conflicts between Spain’s central government and Catalonia which remained unresolved through the conciliation procedure outlined in Article 33.2 of the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court (LOTC in Spanish). Specifically, it identifies and examines, through a series of quantitative variables, the constitutional appeals lodged before the Constitutional Court. Additionally, it delineates the content of the Court’s decisions to identify trends and correlations between the pre-jurisdictional and jurisdictional procedures. Finally, it provides a comprehensive study of the effectiveness of the pre-jurisdictional process based on a set of data and graphs enabling visual identification of the evolution of those conflicts against which the procedure outlined in Article 33.2 LOTC proved ineffective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article "Constitutional Justice in Italy" presents a review of Roberto Romboli's book on the subject. Romboli is a renowned professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Pisa and has published numerous works on fundamental rights guarantees and constitutional justice. The author highlights the existence of a system of constitutional justice in Italy, which is based on a notion of the Constitution as a legal norm and source of law. The two models of constitutional justice, diffuse and concentrated, are mentioned, as well as the fourth generation of constitutional justice. The composition and functioning of the Italian Constitutional Court, as well as its role in defending constitutional supremacy, are also addressed. The text analyzes the doctrine and decisions of the Italian Constitutional Court, highlighting their relevance for Spain. It is mentioned that the Court has adopted the reasonableness parameter in its decisions and controls the constitutionality of decree-laws. It is also mentioned that the Court has allowed the intervention of third parties in constitutional processes and has reduced the number of interpretative judgments of conformity. Additionally, the article addresses the conflict of powers between the branches of the State and the Court's competence to judge the admissibility of requests for derogatory referendums. Finally, the relationship between the Court and European courts is mentioned, as well as the need to rethink the model of rights protection. [Extracted from the article]

The Constitutional Court has declared unconstitutional the provisions of the Hunting Law of Castilla y León related to wolf hunting. The inclusion of all wolf populations in the List of Wild Species under Special Protection (LESRPE) prohibits their hunting, contradicting the regional law that considered the wolf as a game species. Spain is obliged to protect wolf populations south of the Duero River, while those in the north may be subject to management measures. Order TED 980/2021 has been declared unconstitutional in relation to wolf hunting, generating controversy and allegations of lack of legal certainty. The article analyzes complaints about the dilution of the concept of "materially basic" in the environmental legal field and the importance of interpreting norms considering the material object and the consequences of the norm. The situation in Spain is also compared to that of Germany, where tensions exist between federal and regional laws regarding wolf protection. Additionally, information is provided on the application of the Hunting Law in Castilla y León and wolf protection in Germany and Sweden, and the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Tapiola case is mentioned. The article provides bibliographic references related to constitutional law and environmental law that may be useful for those researching these specific topics. [Extracted from the article]

The Supreme Court Judgment of Spain dated October 29, 2021 resolves an appeal filed by the Community of Madrid against a judgment of the High Court of Justice of Madrid. The main issue is whether the lack of approval of an urban planning plan can invalidate an authorization for the installation of electrical energy. The Supreme Court establishes that the lack of said plan would only invalidate the resolution in the terms of article 48.2 of Law 39/2015, since it is not expressly established that the effectiveness of the authorization is subject to the approval of the plan. Furthermore, the judgment points out that the authorization in energy matters can be granted without the prior approval of the corresponding urban planning plan, although its effectiveness is conditioned on obtaining the necessary authorizations in terms of territorial planning and environmental protection. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Revista Catalana de Dret Públic is the property of Revista Catalana de Dret Public and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Judgement of the Constitutional Court 31/2010 has resolved a constitutional challenge brought against the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia. The Judgement, a decision of great importance because the nature of the controlled norm, saves mostly the constitutionality of the Statute but on condition of verifying the interpretation of some of its provisions in a certain way and especially considering that the competences set by Statute do not prevent action that even on the same subjects could be implemented by the State exercising the reserved powers under the Constitution. Important to the future of the autonomous State is also the development of the principle of participation that is included in the judgement. Judgement that also con- firms the legitimacy of the inclusion of identitarian content in the statutory reserve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This academic survey, answered by Public Law Professors, focuses on the Decision 31/2010 of the Constitutional Court, on 28th juny, about a group of demands against the new «Estatuto de Cataluña», the foundation norm of Cataluña, approved by the Ley Orgánica 6/2006, on 19th july. In this survey can be found questions relative to the constitutional court decision content - the validity of the preamble, the official languages, organs and institutions in Cataluña and in the Central State, competences and financing-as well as relative to the dissent opinions and to the context in which this decision has been taken. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper makes a review of the decisions that the Spanish Constitutional Court has taken in its judgement 31/2010 regarding the rules about the judiciary in the Catalonia Act of 2006. After a short reference to the situation before this judgement, the paper analyzes the different points of it, from the language problems to the proposed Justice Council of Catalonia, looking also at the questions about the public prosecutor, the Superior Court, etc. The conclusion is that the judgement is a complete revision of the rules of the Catalonia Act in these matters, a revision that, through the interpretation of some norms, and the annulment of others, proceeds to defuse the value of that rules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article deals with the results of the standing of the Spanish Ombudsman in order to bring actions of constitutionality, and those to defend human rights, before the Constitutional Court. After a complete review of the decisions of this Court, in which, some way or another, the Ombudsman has taken part, a critical reflection is made on the influence this institution has exerted through these tools, and what the consequences have been for the constitutional system as a whole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this article is to examine the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) of 30 June 2009, on the Batasuna and Herri Batasuna Cases, which confirms the banning of these political parties. It addresses the importance, not so much legal but political of this judgment, and examines, in particular, the violations of the freedoms of association (article 11 ECHR) and expression (art. 10 ECHR) in order to evidence that the Law of Political Parties and their application by the Spanish courts to Herri Batasuna Batasuna overcomes, without problems the test of European conventionality. The European judgment points out that the Spanish system of dissolution of political parties gives more guarantees that the system of European Convention of Human Rights and that the context of terrorism is crucial when assessing the necessity and proportionality of a measure of this importance in a democratic society. The ruling of the ECHR is also a good example of dialogue between the ECHR and the Spanish Constitutional Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]