Abstract

The essay examines a poorly explored issue of constitutional justice: the possibility that ordinary judges decide not to refer a law to the Constitutional Court, despite having known that other judges have already questioned the constitutionality of that same law (applicable to their own trial) before the Constitutional Court. The essay studies the consequences resulting from this conduct of the judge and the possible asymmetry of treatment arising in different trials among the same situations and the same rights if the Constitutional Court declares the law unconstitutional. Finally, it also evaluates how to avoid these asymmetries in rights protection by suggesting some tentative procedural solutions.