Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. Preliminary Control: General Remarks. – 3. Explicit Preliminary Judicial Control. – 4. Implicit Preliminary Judicial Control. – 5. Conclusions.
Background: Genetically, constitutional control appeared in connection with the need to check the constitutionality of ordinary laws adopted by the parliament. A significant practice of the bodies of constitutional jurisdiction regarding preliminary or subsequent control overdraft laws/laws on amendments to the constitution was also gradually formed. This approach has both positive and negative sides. In Ukraine, a significant practice of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine has already been formed regarding the provision of conclusions on the compliance of draft laws on amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine to comply with its Arts. 157-158 (preliminary control). An assessment of the relevant national experience is impossible without a comparative approach and study of the experience of foreign countries.
Methods: The present paper used the following methods of analysis and synthesis to examine the main approaches to the nature of the preliminary judicial constitutional control of amendments to the constitution and its variation (explicit and implicit): the system-structural method, which allowed us to give a structural description of the preliminary judicial constitutional control of amendments to the constitution, as well as to analyse the content of its variations (explicit and implicit), and the logical-legal method, which provided an opportunity to clarify the content of the legal positions of constitutional courts and supreme courts of foreign countries on the implementation of the preliminary judicial constitutional control of amendments to the constitution.
Results and Conclusions: Theoretical and practical approaches to substantiating the nature of the preliminary judicial constitutional control of amendments to the constitution in foreign countries were developed and analysed.