How do constitutional courts differ from courts that review ordinary appeals?

Constitutional courts and appellate courts differ primarily in their structure, jurisdiction, and the nature of the cases they handle.

Appellate Courts

Appellate courts are part of a hierarchical judicial system designed to review decisions made by lower trial courts. Their primary function is to correct legal errors, ensure due process, and clarify the law through the creation of precedents. These courts typically handle appeals from litigants who believe a lower court judgment was flawed, focusing on questions of law rather than re-evaluating facts.1

Constitutional Courts

In many nations, particularly in Europe, constitutional courts are specialized tribunals established to serve as the exclusive guardians of the constitution. Unlike ordinary appellate courts, they possess the unique authority to declare statutes or executive actions unconstitutional.23

Key differences include:
* Specialization: While appellate courts generally handle a broad range of civil or criminal appeals, constitutional courts are often limited to questions regarding the constitutional validity of legislation.12
* Referral vs. Appeal: Constitutional questions often reach these courts via referrals from ordinary judges who identify a constitutional issue during litigation, rather than through standard appeals.2
* Abstract Review: Many constitutional courts can engage in "abstract" review, evaluating the constitutionality of a law without an actual case or controversy, whereas most appellate courts require a concrete dispute.23
* Models of Review: Some countries use a "diffused" model (like the U.S.), where ordinary courts exercise judicial review, while others use a "centralized" model, where only a specialized constitutional court holds this power.34