Abstract:
Constitutional Courts is a book title by the late professor of constitutional law, Louis Favoreu. Previously, the translation of his debate with Professor Georges Vedel regarding the principles of supra-constitutionality was published in the first issue of this journal. Now, an article by this author about constitutional courts is presented to seekers of science and truth. The present article is a small part of the book Constitutional Courts, which has been translated into Persian by the author of this pen. The complete translation of this book will gradually be published in future issues of the Constitutional Law journal. It is worth mentioning that after its complete and gradual publication in the Constitutional Law journal, the translation of the aforementioned work will be adorned as an independent book.
Machine summary:
Table of Contents Foreword Part One - The European Model of Constitutional Justice First - Choosing the European Model 1 - Rejection of the American Model 2 - Acceptance of the Kelsenian Model Second - Characteristics of the European Model 1 - Common characteristics of constitutional courts 2 - Specific characteristics of each of the constitutional courts (1)- FAVOREU(Louis),Les Cours constitutionnelles,Presses Universitaires de France,,3e E?d.
Part Two - Constitutional Court of Austria Part Three - Federal Constitutional Court of Germany Part Four - Constitutional Court of Italy Part Five - Constitutional Council of France Part Six - Constitutional Court of Spain Part Seven - Constitutional Court of Portugal Part Eight - Constitutional Arbitration Court of Belgium Part Nine - Other Courts Foreword: Certainly, the most prominent event in the second half of the twentieth century in the field of European constitutional law is the development of constitutional justice2.
The presence of constitutional law aspects in all lawsuits is possible, but this does not necessitate a special proceeding: in fact, in the American system, there is no constitutional litigation, just as there is no administrative6 or judicial7 litigation, because fundamentally there is no reason to distinguish between the cases brought before a judge.
Carré de Malberg31 has explained this matter very aptly regarding the Third Republic of France:32 "In America, the consequence of a court's decision regarding the declaration of an ordinary law's conflict with the constitution is that it creates an insurmountable obstacle against the will of the legislator.
(
, 
, 
)
