Types of Access to Constitutional Jurisdiction with Emphasis on Constitutional Complaint

Constitutional jurisdiction, prior to the advent of broad wave of human rights concepts (almost before 1945), can be examined primarily within the framework of institutional constitutional law. At that historical period, the administration of constitutional justice, wich had the primary purpose of ensuring the stability of governmental structures and the existing separation of powers and observance the hierarchy of norms, was usually abstract. The supervision of the constitutional courts at that time was mostly priori, and in cases where posteriori review had been foreseen, referral of the petition was merely a matter for the authority of government officials, such as the president or prime minister. After the end of the Second World War and the movement of legal systems towards libertarian constitutional law, tangible changes were made in the functions of these institutions. From now on, different countries have provided individuals access to these institutions in various ways in order to pursue their fundamental rights and freedoms. Among all of the predicted ways of accessing constitutional jurisdiction, the constitutional complaint has come up with wider grasp. Constitutional complaint is the most effective way of guaranteeing and protecting fundamental freedoms. In this paper, after classifying and reviewing the different ways of access to constitutional jurisdiction, considering the importance of constitutional complaint and answering questions related to the components and principles of this method, its significant effects on the formation of participatory democracy and the theory of human rights in a country will be considered as the basis for the constitutional complaint.