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(s) the Constitution and how constitutional review is organised. These two questions are the subject of this book by Maartje de Visser, which offers a comprehensive, comparative analysis of how 11 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 endeavours 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 amongst 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 United Kingdom. This book is intended for practitioners, academics and students with an interest in (European) constitutional law.

Maartje de Visser is an Assistant Professor of Law at the Singapore Management University. 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).