Abstract

This study aims to highlight the gains in the right of individuals in Morocco to access constitutional justice by pleading the unconstitutionality of a specific statute. It looks at the regulation of this right and the conditions for the acceptance of such claims in comparison with other constitutional judicial systems, specifically the French constitutional judiciary, as well as the extent to which this mechanism helps to safeguard and protect rights and liberties. I use a comparative approach to identify similarities and differences between the Moroccan constitutional judiciary and its French counterpart, as well as to draw in the Egyptian constitutional judiciary whenever possible. The study adopts a legal approach to analyse constitutional and legal texts, and court rulings relevant to claims of unconstitutionality, examining the procedures and conditions for making such claims and their limits. The study finds that there are some difficulties that may hinder individuals in their attempt to access constitutional justice, such as frivolous lawsuits aimed only at prolonging litigation, especially given the potential for the proliferation of claims. The study demonstrates that individuals’ access to constitutional justice is linked to their recognition of the need to make proper use of the unconstitutionality argument, in order to avoid flooding the court with frivolous suits.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call