المستخلص: |
The qualitative transformation of fundamental freedoms is in line with the changes defined by the Constitutional Court in the 2011 Constitution. The most important of these changes is the transition from the Council's institution to the Judicial Institution, which requires the quality of the decision issued by this institution, the various authorities and does not accept the appeal. There are variables in terms of the requirement of competence and eligibility to win membership within the Constitutional Court, in addition to the qualitative changes in the terms of reference, especially those relating to international conventions and treaties. All these will qualify the Constitutional Court for the qualitative shifts of freedoms. A comparative study of a variety models of the institution in the constitutional justice shows that there is a theory of the constitutional judge's contribution to its establishment, which is the "constitutional supremacy theory", in which the constitutional judge produced a set of fundamental freedoms, . This led us to bring this to Moroccan model which is closer to the entrance of trying hard, and we turned to some constitutional decisions, to know the capabilities and competencies of the Moroccan constitutional judge, to deal with the Natria "constitutional freedoms." The majority of the decisions issued by the Moroccan Constitutional Court have to do with elections and political conflicts, which makes them far from basic freedoms, but this problem has been tried by the constitutional legislator to overcome it, through a new constitutional mandate to push the unconstitutionality of laws, To raise the issue affecting their freedoms and the constitutional judiciary, which will contribute to changing the directions of the constitutional judge.
|