نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 . دانشیار حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران
2 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه تبریز، تبریز، ایران.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
This study examines the mechanisms of citizens’ constitutional complaints against laws inconsistent with the Constitution using a descriptive–analytical method and a comparative approach. In Iran’s legal system, supervision over legislation is mainly exercised ex ante and in an abstract manner by the Guardian Council. Although this form of review is necessary to ensure the general conformity of legislation with the Constitution, it is not always capable of addressing the practical consequences of laws after their implementation. The central question of the research is whether post enactment constitutional complaints by citizens constitute redundant oversight or serve as a complementary mechanism for the effective protection of fundamental rights. Examining the experiences of countries such as Germany, Spain, and France shows that successful constitutional complaint systems rely on effective admissibility filters, clear enforcement mechanisms for annulment decisions, and an independent judicial authority to hear constitutional claims. These mechanisms enable citizens to defend their constitutional rights against the concrete effects of legislation. The findings indicate that post enactment constitutional complaints not only avoid creating institutional overlap but can also complement the Guardian Council’s ex ante review and help fill the gap in protecting citizens’ rights during the implementation of laws.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)