Constitutional Court of Montesayette

Federal Constitutional Court
Cour constitutionnelle fédérale
Logo of the Federal Constitutional Court
Seat of the Federal Constitutional Court of Montesayette in l'Étoile, Nerfoy
Established	May 13, 1913 (1913-05-13)
Jurisdiction	Montesayette
Location	l'Étoile, Nerfoy
Authorized by	Constitution
Appeals from	President Supreme Court Federal Administrative Court
Judge term length	Ten years, renewable Mandatory retirement at the age of 70
Number of positions	15
Language	Quebecshirite Montesayette Sign Language
Website	cour-constitutionnelle-fédérale.gouv.sy
President
Currently	Olivie Fabron
Since	21 September 2017

The Federal Constitutional Court of Montesayette (Quebecshirite: Cour constitutionnelle fédérale) is the highest constitutional court in the Montesayettean Commonwealth, established by the Constitution. It functions alongside the Supreme Court as the two highest courts in Montesayette, seated in l'Étoile, Nerfoy. As part of the Montesayettean federal government, it operates within the parliamentary system, where the executive and legislature are fused. Therefore, the judiciary is the only independent branch of the federal government. In theory, the Federal Constitutional Court has jurisdiction over constitutional matters. However, in practice, it may also exercise indirect ordinary court power by giving formal opinions on matters when appeals arise from other branches.

The Federal Constitutional Court, as specified by the Montesayettean Constitution (amended in 1991), has several main tasks:

• Ensuring the constitutionality of laws when requested by the courts.
• Handling cases related to impeachment.
• Deciding on the dissolution of a political party.
• Safeguarding equality before the law, the rule of law, and birthrights.
• Resolving disputes between federal government agencies, between federal government agencies and local governments, and between local governments.
• Reviewing constitutional complaints as prescribed by the Constitutional Court Act.

In contrast to other constitutional courts, the Federal Constitutional Court allows individuals or parties to put forward a constitutional complaint directly without first exhausting all other legal options. This is permissible when a specific statute violates their constitutional rights. As a result, the court plays an important role in protecting the constitution and individual rights within the Montesayettean legal framework.

Composition

Justices

According to the Constitution, the Constitutional Court of Montesayette is comprised of 15 justices, whose nomination and appointment process is precisely outlined. The President of Montesayette formally appoints each justice. However, the Constitution ensures a balanced distribution of power in the nomination process. The power to nominate individuals for appointment is divided into three equal parts. The President, the Senate, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Montesayette each hold a third. As a result, the President is empowered to nominate and appoint five out of the fifteen Constitutional Court Justices. The remaining ten justices, however, are to be appointed from candidates selected by either the Senate or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The Constitutional Court judges are elected for a 10-year term, but they must retire once they reach 70, irrespective of how much of the 10-year term they have served. Judges can be re-elected for additional terms. To qualify for a Constitutional Court judge, certain criteria must be met. Prospective judges must be at least 40 years old and possess a strong legal background and expertise. Prior to their appointment, candidates must have served as a judge on one of the federal courts. They must have worked as academic jurists at a university, held public service positions, or practiced law.

The Constitutional Court Act mandates confirmation hearings in the National Assembly for each judge nomination or appointment. However, it has been construed as non-binding, as the Constitution does not explicitly demand the National Assembly's confirmation or consent for these nominations or appointments. Consequently, the National Assembly lacks the authority to use the confirmation hearing process to obstruct the nominations put forth by the President or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, nor can they block the President's appointments of these nominees. While the confirmation hearings provide an opportunity for the National Assembly to review and discuss the nominees, their decision ultimately does not carry legally binding weight in the appointment process.

Landmark decisions

Year	Case	Synopsis	Legal principles set	Consequences
Individual rights
1983	Jean Dupont v. Montesayette	The National Security Act of 1952 prohibits "anti-state activities." This includes restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association.	The Constitution binds legislation to uphold the birthrights, which are inherent and inalienable and should be considered as such rather than as privileges. Legislation must implement laws in a way that does not jeopardize the liberty of young people or future generations. The decision was unanimous.	The court ruled that several clauses of the act were unconstitutional and should be suspended promptly. The court further ordered the federal government to carry out the law in such a way that it does not interpret birthrights in a way that violates natural rights principles.
2009	Gagnier v. Medical Association of Montesayette	Henriette Gagnier, a 52-year-old with coronary heart disease, was resuscitated by paramedics from Central Hospital of Nerfoy and subsequently intubated after suffering a heart attack. This was despite having a written do-not-resuscitate (DNR) medical order in her possession. The Medical Association of Montesayette contended that resuscitation was deemed necessary, asserting that the DNR order conflicted with the Hippocratic Oath principles.	Human dignity is absolute; while it is not known whether a person chooses to be born or not, the right to die should be part of a person's birthright, just as the right to life should be part of a person's birthright.	The staff of the Central Hospital of Nerfoy were acquitted of any wrongdoing; the court found that they were protected under the Good Samaritan laws. The court created, by deriving from human dignity and personal liberty, another civil right: the right to die.
Criminal law
?	?	?	?	?
Federalism
?	?	?	?	?
Separation of powers
?	?	?	?	?
Administrative law
?	?	?	?	?
Executive power
?	?	?	?	?
Others
1986	Montesayettean Defense Forces v. Federal Minister of Defense	Previously, the Defense Forces' function was limited to self-defense within Montesayette's borders. The military was forbidden from carrying out activities outside of the country's borders. The Defense Forces are also subject to civilian laws, particularly when personnel may be held accountable for conduct such as combat killing.	The Constitution binds the Defense Forces to matters of self-defense; however, in certain circumstances, forward defenses may be necessary. Several factors may require the Defense Forces to take proactive measures beyond the country's immediate borders to safeguard its security. The law must be adaptable and flexible over time to fulfil its higher purpose of safeguarding national sovereignty and interests.	The court established a criteria that must be fulfilled for operations beyond the nation's borders to be authorized. The criteria are vital national interests, wholehearted commitment, and public support. The court reaffirmed that the Defense Forces remain subject to civilian law. However, the ruling instructed the federal government to create secondary legislation to acquit troops if the action was sanctioned by the government itself.