IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/lawdev/v14y2021i1p33-57n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Constitutional Court as Constitutional Complaint Institution: Evidence from Serbia

Author

Listed:
  • Polovchenko Konstantin

    (Department of Constitutional Law, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University), Moscow, Russian Federation)

Abstract

A noticeable increase in the scope of powers of the constitutional supervisory body of Serbia is directly related with a qualitative change in the status of the Constitutional Court. The purpose of the article is to analyse the competences of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Serbia in protecting rights and freedoms as the most important area of its activity. The article presents a study of the increased powers of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Serbia, the purpose of which is to protect rights and freedoms. The leading method in this study is the system analysis method, which allows us to assess the significance of the constitutional complaints institution in Serbia. Studying the current regulation of the competence of the Constitutional Court of Serbia, the author concludes that the significantly expanded competence of the Constitutional Court of Serbia fully reflects its status as a constitutional body representing the fourth judicial control authority in the state. It also ensures the supremacy of the Constitution and protects the foundations of the constitutional system of Serbia, including protection of rights and freedoms in the Republic of Serbia.

Suggested Citation

  • Polovchenko Konstantin, 2021. "Constitutional Court as Constitutional Complaint Institution: Evidence from Serbia," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 14(1), pages 33-57, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:14:y:2021:i:1:p:33-57:n:2
    DOI: 10.1515/ldr-2020-0013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2020-0013
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/ldr-2020-0013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:lawdev:v:14:y:2021:i:1:p:33-57:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.