The European Court of Human Rights has, since long conference of European Constitutional Courts and their work, it always follows with keen interest. It has observer status, but it does not mean she has no hand in the field of European constitutional justice. Instead, according to the conception I have of her role, the European Court works in partnership with national constitutional courts and courts of equivalent jurisdiction. Whether or not itself a "constitutional court" is rather a matter of semantics. We can still qualify as quasi-constitutional court, sui generis. The questions she is asked to decide constitutional issues are certainly as far as they concern the fundamental rights of European citizens. There is no doubt that it is more domestic judicial authorities themselves, particularly in courses with constitutional authority, it is primarily to resolve these issues, as is the subsidiary nature of the mechanism of protection established by the European Convention of Human Rights.
European control is a device designed to catch issues that escape the scrutiny of the national constitutional bodies.
It is the theory. It is different in practice and I would say there are problems on both sides. On the one hand, effectiveness, or even the existence of remedies in the Contracting States regarding alleged violations of the rights and freedoms conventional poses. On the other hand, the Strasbourg Court may sometimes be difficult to resist the temptation to go too deeply into matters of fact and law, to become the famous "fourth instance" that she always defends itself be. It is when the complaints have not been articulated in the national proceedings, or have not been so effective that the Court is somewhat of a dilemma.
2. BASICS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS