cover_erpl_83.png
Serbia in “a Europe of Rights”: The Effects of the Constitutional Dialogue between the Serbian and European Judges
Author(s)
Violeta Beširević
Tanasije Marinković
Language
English
Pages
30
2012/ Vol. 24, No. 1, (83)
Type
Digital edition
10.00 €

SERBIA IN "A EUROPE OF RIGHTS":
THE EFFECTS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL DIALOGUE
BETWEEN THE SERBIAN AND EUROPEAN JUDGES


VIOLETA BEŠIREVIĆ
Professor of Law, Union University Law School Belgrade
TANASIJE MARINKOVIĆ
Assistant Professor, University of Belgrade Law School

This paper traces the relationship between the ECtHR and the Constitutional Court of Serbia in a period of almost five years. The dialogue consists of the former verifying how effective the constitutional appeal is, and of the latter applying the ECtHR's jurisprudence in the matters falling under its jurisdiction. The paper demonstrates that the ECtHR has shown its habitual cautiousness with regard to the effectiveness of the last instance remedy in a domestic legal system. On is part, the Constitutional Court appears to be unsystematic in following Strasbourg. Its jurisprudence varies from a full respect to a complete disregard of the ECtHR's practice. The fact that the Constitutional Court has shown a random but increasing interest to use the ECtHR's practice and the Convention in its decisions is mostly attributable to the Court's lack of experience in deciding human rights cases and not to its unwillingness to follow Strasbourg.

Cette contribution retrace la relation entre la CourEDH et la Cour Constitutionnelle de la Serbie pour une période de presque cinq ans. Le dialogue consiste en la vérification par la CourEDH de l'efficacité du recours constitutionnel et de l'application par la Cour Constitutionnelle de la Serbie de la jurisprudence de la CourEDH dans les matières relevant de sa compétence. La contribution démontre que la CourEDH a montré sa prudence habituelle par rapport à l'efficacité du dernier re-cours dans un système juridique interne. Pour sa part, la Cour Constitutionnelle ne paraît pas suivre Strasbourg d'une façon systématique. Sa jurisprudence varie entre le plein respect et le mépris total de la pratique de la CourEDH. Le fait que la Cour Constitutionnelle ait montré un intérêt aléatoire mais croissant pour l'utilisation de la pratique de la CourEDH et de la Convention dans ses décisions est surtout attribuable au manque d'expérience de la Cour dans le domaine des droits de l'homme et non pas à sa réticence à suivre Strasbourg.

Submit your paper

To avoid any conflict of interest, authors should state their present affiliation and indicate any personal or professional involvement in the subject matter of their manuscript.

Learn more

Publication Search