Pöördumine

KONINKRIJK BELGIts GRONDWETTELIJI( HOF Mr. President dr. iur. Villu Kõve Supreme Court of Estonia Prof. dr. Danny PIETERS l-7 Lossi St, Rechter EST 50093 Tartu Estonia Dear President, My name is Danny Pieters and I am professor of Constitutional Law at KU Leuven and judge at the Belgian Constitutional Court. Within the Law Faculty of KU Leuven, I am chair of the Small J urisdictions Resea rch Grou p. We are planning to conduct research into the constitutional courts of a selected number of countries with less than 1 % million inhabitants. As such, we would be very interested to include your court in our research. The purpose of our research is to identify features and challenges common to the constitutional courts of the examined small jurisdictions. For each constitutional court we will deal with the following topics: 1,. Brief history of the constitutional court 2. Composition a. Judges and the way they are appointed b. Panels of judges deciding the cases c. Staff supporting the work of the constitutional judges (number and level of qualification) 3. Access to the court a. How? i. Direct access by state institutlons ii. Direct access by private persons and entities iii. Prejudicial questions/referral by other court deciding a case iv. Other b. When? Moment of intervention (before statute is enacted, within a period of X days etc.) 4. Competences a. Control of constitutionality of which instruments (statutes; bills and proposals; lower legislation; etc.) Koningsplein 7 danny. pleters@const-court. be B-lOOO Brussel  b. The conformity with which norms are being checked? i. All constitutional provisions ii. Constitutional provisions relating to 1. Competences of various state institutions 2. Fundamental rights and principles such as rule of law, proportionality etc. 3. Other constitutional provisions (such as ?) 5. The proceedings before the court a. Brief account of the procedure according to which the cases are dealt with b. Legal deadlines for decision / Average duration(s) of handling a case (may be subdivided according to sort of cases) c. Deciding majority d. Transparency of vote (who voted what?) and (im)possibility of concurrlng or dissenting opinion(s) e. Publicity given to the fact that a norm is under scrutiny by the court and publicity given to the decision by the court 6. Types of decisions the court can conclude to a. Annulment; rejection of the annulmen! interpretation; replacement by a norm in conformity with the constitution etc. + average percentages of each type of decision (especially the average success rate of litigation before the court) b. Resolution of competence conflict c. Other 7. Relation with other Courts (CJEU; ECHR; other): a. Does the constitutional court refer to other courts (prejudicial questions)? b. How does the constitutional court handle constitutional provisions with a similar content as provisions of international treaties (such as fundamental rights of ECHR or EU)? 8. The practice a. Number of cases per year (possibly subdivided according to sort of decision) b. Main areas of activity/jurisprudence (e.g. criminal law; privacy; etc.) c. Position of constitutional court in media and public opinion 9. Hanging issues concerning the constitutional court and future perspectives l-0. Sources where case law and legal comments are to be found / bibliography ln a second phase, we will make a comparison between the courts we have studied. At this point, we will also try to establish which aspects of constitutional courts of small jurisdictions show different features compared to constitutional courts of larger jurisdictions, as well as compare the difference in challenges they are confronted with. ln a last phase, we would aim to bring together representatives of the constitutional courts of the smalljurisdictions to discuss the results of our research. At this stage, we would like to ask you whether you would be willing to help us with our research. Could you please let us know whether you are able to provide information concerning the above-mentioned topics, and in case of a positive answer, when we could expect this information? We would of course be very grateful if you could provide us with information on each topic, but you may also refer us to information that is available online or publications that deal with the topics. However, for topics 8 and 9 it would be important to have your personal assessment. All information may be provided in the language of your.choice. Once we have gathered all information needed, we will make uniform country reports in English, which we will send to you for comments. We remain at your disposal for any clarification or additional information Looking forward to a positive reply, Yours respectfully, Prof.dr. Danny Pieters Brouwersstraat 33 8-3000 Leuven Belgium Saatja: Thijs Keersmaekers <[email protected]> Saaja: Karin Leichter-Tammisto, Info Teema: Research Project KU Leuven – Constitutional Courts ​Dear ms. Leichter-Tammisto, Enclosed with this message, you’ll find a letter to the attention of the president of the Supreme Court of Estonia, inviting the Supreme Court to take part in a research project of the Institute of Comparative Law of KU Leuven regarding the constitutional courts of small jurisdictions. This letter has also been sent by post and will most likely arrive in the near future. Could you please make sure this message reaches the president of the Court? Thank you very much in advance. Kind regards, Thijs Keersmaekers On behalf of Prof. dr. Danny Pieters Judge at the Constitutional Court of Belgium Chair of Comparative Law KU Leuven​