15 Judges trained on the criteria of ‘interest’ and ‘seriousness’ in constitutional jurisprudence
On 13 and 14 December, the Max Planck Foundation delivered a two-day workshop on ‘The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Courts on Standards for ‘Interest’ and ‘Seriousness’ in Challenges to the Constitutionality of Laws and Regulations from a Comparative Perspective’. The workshop was formally inaugurated by Taher Hikmat, President of the Constitutional Court of Jordan and a representative of the Max Planck Foundation.
The technical content of the workshop focused on comparative legal jurisprudence from France, Germany, Italy, Egypt and Jordan. The workshop delivered legal analyses of the comparative jurisprudence of constitutional courts focusing on the treatment and application of the two criteria that must be satisfied for a referral to, and admitting a case at the Constitutional Court of Jordan. The criteria of ‘interest’ and ‘seriousness’ refer to the personal and direct interest that a complainant must prove in order to evidence standing to bring a challenge to the constitutionality of a law or regulation, and the ‘seriousness’ of the substantive challenge. The workshop and discussions with 15 judges of the Constitutional Court deliberated on how ‘interest’ and ‘seriousness’ are assessed and adjudicated by courts in five jurisdictions and relevant guiding principles.
The workshop is one component of the Max Planck Foundation’s project on ‘Raising Technical Capacity and Technical Knowledge of Judges of the Constitutional Court and Ordinary Courts in Jordan (2017-2019)’, funded by the German Federal Foreign Office. The project aims to enhance the capacity of judicial and legal institutions in Jordan on constitutional jurisprudence, substantive and procedural interaction between the Constitutional Court and ordinary courts, and the application of international law by Jordanian courts.