Περίληψη σε άλλη γλώσσα
The purpose of the dissertation is to diagnose and critically evaluate the varying levels of intensity of judicial review of constitutionality in the Greek Council of State case law. Following the exhaustive analysis of the decisions of the CoS full court, issued within the decade 2011-2020 and concerning six specific areas (fiscal policy, social security, administrative organization, economic freedom, education and environment), three distinct levels of intensity of judicial scrutiny are recorded: marginal, intermediate and strict review. In marginal review, the constitutional judge recognizes to the legislature a wide range of means serving the constitutionally legitimate purposes. Although this limited level of scrutiny dominates the overall constitutional jurisprudence, it tends to occur more often in decisions dealing with issues of significant fiscal consequences, as well as in matters relating to the organization and operation of public authorities and bodies. The intermediate r ...
The purpose of the dissertation is to diagnose and critically evaluate the varying levels of intensity of judicial review of constitutionality in the Greek Council of State case law. Following the exhaustive analysis of the decisions of the CoS full court, issued within the decade 2011-2020 and concerning six specific areas (fiscal policy, social security, administrative organization, economic freedom, education and environment), three distinct levels of intensity of judicial scrutiny are recorded: marginal, intermediate and strict review. In marginal review, the constitutional judge recognizes to the legislature a wide range of means serving the constitutionally legitimate purposes. Although this limited level of scrutiny dominates the overall constitutional jurisprudence, it tends to occur more often in decisions dealing with issues of significant fiscal consequences, as well as in matters relating to the organization and operation of public authorities and bodies. The intermediate review includes the decisions in which the CoS requires the legislature to fully justify its choices. This reasoning is sought in all the pre-legislative documents (explanatory report, parliamentary minutes, etc.), while it can also acquire the specialized form of scientific studies. This level of scrutiny is more common in cases of imposing legislative restrictions, especially in the field of financial freedom, as well as in cases of social security and environmental law. Moreover, the main indications for the adoption of strict scrutiny are, on the one hand, the use of the methodological tool of the cumulative burden of the same social groups, and, on the other hand, the formulation of suggestions to the legislature regarding the legitimate way of legislation –according to the views of the CoS. The above distinctions are inspired by the similar scrutiny levels found in US Supreme Court decisions, which refer to "rational basis", "intermediate" and "strict scrutiny" review. The proposed systematic classification of levels of intensity of judicial review is a novel pattern for approaching case law, which focuses on the methodological techniques applied in order to classify each decision at one of the above levels, without concentrating only on the outcome of the judicial review or on the legal terminology used. Finally, the strengthening of the CoS powers, which occurred mainly through the introduction of the “pilot trial”, but also through the expansive interpretation of the newly acquired procedural discretion, concerning its capability of limiting the annulment effect, is addressed. These developments have not led to a major change in case law trends in terms of variations in the intensity of the judicial review, but have contributed to the gradual transformation from diffuse, incidental and specific review to more centralized, main and abstract review.
περισσότερα
