LEGAL CHALLENGES OF JUDICIAL REFERRALS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT IN THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA

Abstract

This article examines legal challenges of judicial referrals to the Constitutional Court in Armenia. The analysis is not confined to procedural conditions, but focuses on public-law significance for the rule of law, constitutional supremacy and the constitutionalization of the legal order. The article argues that ordinary courts are not passive applicators of statutes in a centralized model of constitutional review. When a norm applicable in a concrete case raises a constitutionally reasoned concern, the court becomes the first institution capable of detecting that problem and transferring it to constitutional justice. Particular attention is paid to the standard of “reasonable doubt”, which has acquired a more substantive meaning in the recent procedural decisions of the Constitutional Court. The article uses doctrinal, comparative and statistical methods, including the annual reports of the Constitutional Court for 2006-2025 to assess the dynamics of judicial referrals and their relationship with individual applications. The conclusion is that reasonable doubt must be strict enough to exclude formal or unsubstantiated referrals, not so demanding as to neutralize the constitutional initiative of ordinary courts.