The division of powers between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court is one of the most sensitive and, at the same time, in a certain sense, controversial issues of the Azerbaijani judicial system. Although this division is formally defined in legislation, in practice, their functional boundaries are not always clear. In particular, the issue of balance between the principle of the Constitution having supreme legal force and the stability of court decisions and the requirement of legal certainty brings the roles of these two judicial instances closer to each other, and in some cases, causes them to clash.
On the one hand, the Constitutional Court acts as an p that assesses the conformity of normative legal acts, as well as judicial acts, with the Constitution, and the official interpretation of the Constitution is considered its exclusive competence. On the other hand, the Supreme Court, as a cassation instance, supervises the correct application of substantive and procedural law, generalizes judicial practice, and strives to ensure the uniform application of law.
In this context, several interesting questions arise. How is the division of powers between the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court distributed? Also, on which legal issues does the final say belong to the Constitutional Court, and on which issues to the Supreme Court, and how is this boundary defined by legislation?
In a statement to Modern.az, Alimammad Nuriyev, head of the Constitutional Research Foundation, clarified the issue, noting that in the Azerbaijani legal system, the division of powers between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court is based not on the principle of hierarchy, but on the principle of functional differentiation.
“The Supreme Court, as the highest instance of the general court system, supervises the correct and uniform application of substantive and procedural law, ensures the elimination of judicial errors and the stability of judicial practice.
The Constitutional Court, on the other hand, is a special constitutional control p that assesses the conformity of normative legal acts and court decisions with the Constitution. This division of powers is clearly enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, as well as in the laws “On Courts and Judges” and “On the Constitutional Court”. Thus, the first law defines the powers of the general court system, including the Supreme Court, while the second law precisely specifies the exclusive scope of competence of the Constitutional Court”.
The lawyer also emphasized that regarding the issue of which legal matters fall under the Supreme Court's jurisdiction and which under the Constitutional Court's, the application of substantive and procedural law, the elimination of judicial errors, and the ensuring of uniformity in judicial practice fall within the competence of the Supreme Court:
“In contrast, the interpretation of the Constitution, the verification of the conformity of laws and other normative legal acts with the Constitution, as well as the assessment of the impact of court decisions on constitutional rights and freedoms, fall exclusively within the competence of the Constitutional Court.
In other words, if a legal dispute is at the stage of how a law is applied, the final word belongs to the Supreme Court. If the dispute concerns whether the Constitution has been violated, this matter already falls within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court”.
He also stated that the verification of the conformity of judicial acts with the Constitution is exclusively within the competence of the Constitutional Court:
“While the Supreme Court may refer to and apply the provisions and principles of the Constitution when making a decision, it does not have the right to declare a judicial act contrary to the Constitution and issue a constitutional decision that produces legal consequences. This approach is not only a fundamental requirement of the centralized model of constitutional control but also holds significant importance for ensuring legal stability.
The Plenum decisions of the Supreme Court, which generalize judicial practice, serve to explain the application of laws, not the Constitution, and play a methodological guiding role for courts. These decisions cannot be considered the official and binding interpretation of the Constitution. The official interpretation of the Constitution, which has a special legal status, is exclusively granted to the Constitutional Court”.
The lawyer also added that the mechanism of individual constitutional complaint brings the Constitutional Court directly into the position of protecting human rights:
“Through this mechanism, a citizen can appeal to the Constitutional Court, claiming that the decisions of the Supreme Court or other courts have violated their constitutional rights and freedoms. This does not weaken the role of the Supreme Court; on the contrary, it strengthens the protection of human rights by forming the final constitutional filter in the judicial system.
If a decision of the Supreme Court leads to a legal consequence contrary to the Constitution, the elimination of this contradiction falls outside the scope of the Supreme Court's control and moves into the plane of constitutional review. The Constitutional Court assesses the conformity of the relevant norm or judicial act with the Constitution and, if necessary, creates conditions for the reformulation of legal consequences”.
A. Nuriyev also drew attention to the importance of appealing to the Constitutional Court regarding the aforementioned issues:
“Thus, the Constitutional Court itself does not have the right to directly verify the conformity of this or that normative legal act, as well as court decisions, with the Constitution on its own initiative. This verification is carried out only on the basis of an appeal by authorized subjects provided for in the Constitution and laws.
Consequently, we can say that the relations between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court do not bear a “superior-inferior” or “top-bottom” character. These relations represent a balance between constitutional control and judicial justice, which is essential for a legal state.
As long as this balance is maintained, both the supreme legal force of the Constitution and the legitimacy of the judicial power are ensured,” the lawyer concluded.
