If a Law Contradicts the Constitution, Court Proceedings Will Be Suspended — New Procedure

A new mechanism that could have a significant impact on protecting citizens’ rights is expected to be introduced in Uzbekistan’s judicial system. If a court hearing a particular case has doubts about whether the law to be applied complies with the Constitution, it will have the option of referring the matter to the Constitutional Court and temporarily suspending the proceedings instead of continuing the case as usual.

There is another important development: if the Constitutional Court finds that a law previously applied in a particular case contradicts the Constitution, a separate procedural basis will be created for reviewing the court document issued on the basis of that law. The draft law was adopted by the Legislative Chamber on first reading, meaning that the new procedure is not yet a law in force.

What happens if the issue of an unconstitutional law arises in court?

The most important part of the draft concerns the court proceedings themselves.

If the issue of whether a law that must be applied in a particular case complies with the Constitution arises, the Supreme Court may, on the initiative of the court, submit an application to the Constitutional Court. When such an application is submitted, the relevant proceedings are expected to be suspended.

Simply put, the scenario could be as follows:

the case is being heard in court → an issue arises regarding the law’s compliance with the Constitution → an application is submitted to the Constitutional Court through the Supreme Court → the main proceedings are temporarily suspended → the proceedings continue after the Constitutional Court’s conclusion.

The importance of this mechanism is that it reduces the risk of a final decision being issued on the basis of a law whose compliance with the Constitution is disputed.

In fact, the Constitution has already granted the right to submit such applications

There is an important distinction here: the possibility of applying to the Constitutional Court itself is not new.

Under Article 133 of the Constitution of Uzbekistan, the Constitutional Court considers applications submitted by the Supreme Court on the initiative of the courts concerning the constitutionality of a regulatory legal act that must be applied in a particular case.

In addition, after exhausting all other available means of judicial protection, a citizen or legal entity may apply to the Constitutional Court with a complaint seeking a review of the constitutionality of a law applied to them in a completed specific case.

The main task of the new draft is to establish a clear procedural mechanism for determining what should happen to the court case when these constitutional rights are exercised.

The biggest innovation: a case may be reviewed even after a decision has been issued

This is one of the most important points for citizens.

Imagine that the court has completed its review of a case and the decision has entered into legal force. Then the Constitutional Court concludes that the law applied in that case does not comply with the Constitution.

One of the existing gaps is the lack of a clear procedural determination of what should happen to the previous court document in such a situation.

The new draft law provides for establishing an independent procedural basis for reviewing a court document if the Constitutional Court finds that the law applied in a particular case does not comply with the Constitution. It will also clarify the procedure for rehearing a case and resuming suspended proceedings on the basis of a decision by the Constitutional Court.

This could make a major practical difference: once an unconstitutional provision is identified, the issue would matter not only for future cases but also for the specific case affected by that law.

What will this mean for citizens?

If the mechanism is adopted, the supremacy of the Constitution is expected to operate more directly in judicial practice.

For example, if the constitutionality of a legal provision of decisive importance in a civil, economic, administrative or criminal case is called into question, the court will not be required to disregard the issue and hastily issue a final decision.

In its official information, Parliament stated that lawmakers had emphasized that the new mechanism would strengthen legal certainty in judicial practice, expand opportunities to restore violated constitutional rights and freedoms, and reduce unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles.

Can an ordinary court repeal a law itself?

No. It would be incorrect to understand the proposed mechanism in this way.

Under the Constitution, determining whether laws and other specified documents comply with the Constitution falls within the powers of the Constitutional Court. If doubts arise in an ordinary court, the matter is referred to the Constitutional Court through the Supreme Court in accordance with the established procedure.

In other words, a judge does not independently repeal a law by declaring, “This law contradicts the Constitution.” The constitutionality of the matter is decided by a specialized court — the Constitutional Court.

But the new rule has not yet entered into force

This aspect is particularly important.

The Legislative Chamber adopted the draft law on first reading. The draft still has to undergo consideration in subsequent readings, further legislative procedures in Parliament, and the stages of formal adoption of the law.

Therefore, there is currently no basis for saying that “courts have begun suspending all such cases.” For now, the issue concerns a procedural mechanism that has been proposed for adoption.

The main change in one sentence

The logic of the new system can be expressed very simply:

Rather than hastily concluding a case on the basis of a law that may contradict the Constitution, first resolve its constitutionality; if a decision was issued on the basis of an incorrect provision, open the way to restore justice.

If the draft becomes law in this form, the principle that the Constitution has “the highest legal force” will also acquire a much more tangible mechanism in an ordinary citizen’s specific court case. The Constitution itself guarantees citizens and legal entities the right to have the constitutionality of a law applied in a completed case assessed.

Leave your opinion in the comments and share the article with your acquaintances via Telegram or other social networks.