Lukashenko: constitutional complaint is additional guarantee for citizens, there should be no formalism
Formal consideration of constitutional complaints from citizens is unacceptable – as noted by President of Belarus Aleksandr Lukashenko during a meeting with judges of the Constitutional Court
The Head of State outlined a number of topical issues of the activity of judges of the Constitutional Court.
Firstly, the interpretation of the Basic Law has become its new constitutional function, requiring the initiative of competent state bodies (the Presidium of the Belarusian People’s Congress, the houses of Parliament, the Supreme Court, and the Government). These bodies also have the right to apply for compliance of normative legal acts with the Constitution.
“However, the Constitutional Court itself must prepare the ground for the implementation of such powers,” the President noted.
In turn, the Belarusian leader added that these constitutional norms should not be declarative for state bodies either, “People come to you with urgent issues.”
Secondly, another important innovation – the institution of constitutional complaint – has appeared in the Basic Law. This is the initiative of the Court itself. Citizens have the opportunity to appeal to the Constitutional Court not only through authorised state bodies, but also personally.
Aleksandr Lukashenko asked what the Constitutional Court is doing so that people can actually use this right?
“You should tell them in an accessible way that a constitutional complaint is their additional guarantee when all remedies in the general jurisdiction courts have been used. If we have introduced direct access to constitutional justice, I consider it unacceptable to formally consider constitutional complaints from citizens,” the Head of State underlined.
Thirdly, today we will also talk about the interaction of courts. General jurisdiction courts also have the right to appeal to the Constitutional Court. When considering a particular case, a judge – having doubted the constitutionality of the act applied in this case – raises the question of checking it for compliance with the Constitution.
The President drew attention to the fact, “Neither before the amendments to the Basic Law, nor after any request was received by the Constitutional Court. What’s the problem? I know that the Supreme Court has its own opinion on this issue.”
