Prudence or discretionality in regard to admission decisions of appeals for constitutional protection of fundamental rights: current trend of constitutional jurisprudence

Abstract

This article aims to analyse the various solutions that both the doctrine and the legislator (Organic Law 6/2007, of May 24), as well as even the Spanish Constitutional Court itself, have proposed to resolve the collapse that must be faced by the Spanish Constitutional Court, when managing the huge volume of appeals for constitutional protection of fundamental rights that reach it and which generates, in turn, serious distortions in the normal development of the functions assigned to the Constitutional Court. From the examination of these solutions, an attempt will be made to discern what is the current trend of the Spanish Constitutional Court at the time of the decision on the inadmissibility of the high number of appeals for constitutional protection of fundamental rights that reach it to determine if there has been an increase in discretionary power of the Court when selecting what it decides or, on the contrary, this decision is a consequence of an attitude of deference to the ordinary jurisdiction that leads the Spanish Court to exercise extreme caution when deciding on the admission of the appeal for constitucional protection filed. Finally, a brief reference is also made to the relationship between the Spanish Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, which has historically been conflictive in the field of the appeal procedure, due to the lack of a clear delimitation of powers between the two Courts and which has led to the Constitutional Court also opting for self-restraint as a mechanism to mitigate the existing conflicts between both Courts.