Constitutional Review in Europe ─ A Comparative Analysis

Constitutions serve to delineate State powers and enshrine basic rights. Such matters are hardly uncontroversial, but perhaps even more controversial are the questions of: Who should uphold the Constitution? How should constitutional review be organized? These two questions are the subject of this book, which offers a comprehensive comparative analysis of how eleven representative European countries answer these questions, as well as a critical appraisal of the EU legal order in light of these national experiences. Where possible, the book endeavors to identify Europe's common and diverse constitutional traditions of constitutional review. The raison d'etre, jurisdiction, and composition of constitutional courts are explored and, so too, are core features of the constitutional adjudicatory process. Yet, this book also deliberately draws attention to the role of non-judicial actors in upholding the Constitution, as well as the complex interplay among constitutional courts and other actors at the national and European level. The Member States featured are Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, the Netherlands, Spain, Poland, and the UK. The book will be of interest to practitioners, academics, and students in constitutional law. (Series: European and National Constitutional Law)

Maartje de Visser is an Assistant Professor of Law at the Singapore Management University. Prior to this, she held appointments at Maastricht University and Tilburg Law School in the Netherlands. This book is the culmination of research carried out between 2008 and 2013 when Maartje was a member of the European and National Constitutional Law (EuNaCon) Project, funded by the European Research Council (ERC).