Court Bias Favors Central Government, Study Finds
Investigadores de la Universidad de Barcelona han analizado cerca de 1.900 resoluciones del Tribunal Constitucional (TC) relativas a la constitucionalidad de normas estatales y autonómicas para examinar si hay un sesgo favorable a las posiciones del Gobierno central. La investigación, publicada en la revista European Journal of Political Research , indica que existe un 55 % de probabilidades de que el TC declare inconstitucional una norma cuando es autonómica, mientras que la probabilidad es solo del 23 % cuando se trata de una norma de origen estatal. “Este resultado confirma la hipótesis de que el TC presenta un sesgo sistemático centralista que se manifiesta en la aplicación de una mayor severidad en la legislación aprobada por los parlamentos autonómicos”, afirman los autores.
The study also points out that cases brought before the Constitutional Court by the central government have an average probability of success of 68%, while in the case of regional governments, it is 31%. The study also shows that the ideological composition of the Constitutional Court has a significant impact on its rulings. Thus, when there is a conservative majority, the probability of regional regulations being declared unconstitutional increases, especially in the case of regional governments led by nationalist parties. The study also analyses the activity of the Constitutional Court in different political scenarios. For example, it concludes that when there is ideological agreement between the Constitutional Court and the central Government and, in turn, the central government’s dependence on nationalist parties, the probability of the Constitutional Court overturning a regional law decreases significantly.
This study, authored by researchers Joan Josep Vallbé and Daniel Cetrà, from the University of Barcelona and Marc Sanjaume, from Pompeu Fabra University, is the most comprehensive study to date on the Spanish Constitutional Court’s regulatory activity. In the nearly 1,900 rulings analysed, variables such as the type of law challenged (whether it is of state or regional origin), the party filing the appeal, the type of procedure, the outcome of the ruling and the political context (ideological orientation of the Constitutional Court, political leanings of the central and regional governments, and whether or not the central government is dependent on nationalist parties) were taken into account.
With this study, the authors aim to “provide a data-based view of the role of the Constitutional Court in shaping relations between the centre and the periphery in Spain, thereby contributing to the debate on the potential (and limits) of the courts as guarantors of political and territorial pluralism.” They conclude that “strengthening the legitimacy of constitutional courts may require reforms in the mechanisms for appointing judges, ensuring greater territorial and ideological plurality, as well as the creation of specific political spaces for the resolution of intergovernmental conflicts that reduce the systematic judicialization of territorial politics.”
Reference article:
Vallbé J-J, Cetrà D, Sanjaume-Calvet M. Judicial review and territorial conflicts: Evidence from Spain. European Journal of Political Research. 2025:1-32. doi:10.1017/S1475676525100455
https://web.ub.edu/en/web/actualitat/w/constitutional-court-research?referer=news
View Original | AusPol.co Disclaimer