Constitutional Court of Croatia
| Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske |
|
|---|---|
 |
|
| Established | 15 February 1964 (in SR Croatia) 25 July 1990 (in Croatia) |
| Country |
 Croatia
|
| Location | Zagreb |
| Composition method | Elected by the Croatian Parliament with qualified majority |
| Authorized by | Constitution of the Republic of Croatia |
| Judge term length | Eight years (renewable once) |
| No. of positions | 13 |
| Website | usud.hr |
| President of the Constitutional Court | |
| Currently |
Miroslav Šeparović since 13 June 2016 |
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia (Croatian: Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) is the interpreter and guardian of the Croatian Constitution which monitors the conformity of laws with the Constitution as well as protection of human rights and freedoms of citizens that are guaranteed by the Constitution. It is considered to be de facto the highest judicial authority because it can overturn Supreme Court decisions on the basis of constitutional breaches. It is not considered as being part of the judicial branch of government, but rather a court sui generis, and it is therefore often colloquially referred to as a "fourth branch of government", alongside the traditional model of tripartite separation of powers into the executive (Government/President of the Republic), legislative (Parliament) and judicial (Supreme Court) branches.
According to the Articles 126-132 of the Croatian Constitution, Constitutional Court shall:
Act of Supplements and Alterations to the Law on Public Gathering stipulated that no public gatherings could be held within 100 meters of buildings in which the Croatian Parliament, President of Republic, the Croatian Government or the Constitutional Court are located or are in session (the Parliament, Government and the Court are all located at St. Mark's Square) On July 6, 2011, Constitutional Court ruled that this law, which restricts a Constitutional liberty - the right to free gathering, was not passed by the majority necessary to override the Constitution on that matter. The Court's decision was that the law shall be put out of effect at a date specified by the Court. The Court also provided Parliament with the necessary number of representatives which must confirm the Act to make it legitimate.
On November 14, 2013, Constitutional Court in a 13–0 statement sent to the State Election Commission stated that there is no constitutional obstacle to hold a 2013 referendum on defining marriage as a union between men and a woman, in the same time pointing out that the referendum revealed numerous problems in the Referendum law and opened a number of legal questions that required answers. Nevertheless, the Court stressed that decision on the referendum was passed by a majority of 104 MPs and that since it was made with more votes than the majority needed to even change the Constitution itself, the referendum should be held. In addition, the Court asked Croatian Parliament to "provide a stable regulatory framework of the referendum process that meets the standards of a democratic society as soon as possible". The Court also decided that "any amendments to the Constitution which would define marriage as being union between a man and a woman should not have any effect on the further development of the legal framework of the institution of same-sex unions in accordance with the constitutional requirement that everyone in Croatia has the right to be respected and right of legal protection of their personal and family life and human dignity". The Court pointed out that it had never received any request or proposal to review the constitutionality of the provisions of the Family Law that regulated marriage as a union between a man and woman, or provisions of the Law on Same-Sex Unions. The Court therefore considered that the referendum on the definition of marriage is not a referendum on the right to respect for family life, because it is constitutionally guaranteed to all persons, regardless of sex and gender, and is under the direct protection of both, the Constitutional Court itself and the European Court of Human Rights. In conclusion, the Court warned that "incorporation of legal institutes in the constitution shouldn't become a systemic phenomenon" and that exceptional individual cases must be justified by being connected, for example, with deep-rooted social and cultural characteristics of the society.
...
Wikipedia