Literature in law and political science has suggested a number of factors explaining choices on the implementation of constitutional review. However, so far little is known about how such factors combine in order to lead to different models of review. With the aid of configurational research, this article sheds light on that question for all countries of the current EU‐28. In this region, the Kelsenian model of specialized courts, the system of review by the judicial branch, and the model of parliamentary sovereignty still currently coexist. This article shows that phenomena such as the type of legal family of the country, an authoritarian past, or political fragmentation play a major role in choices of models of constitutional review. However, it is only when they combine that they are capable of leading to particular outcomes.

中文翻译：

---

欧盟28国成员国中的宪法审查：制度选择的政治分析

法律和政治科学方面的文献提出了许多因素，以解释实施宪法审查的选择。但是，到目前为止，对于这些因素如何组合以导致不同的审查模型知之甚少。借助配置研究，本文为当前欧盟28国的所有国家阐明了这个问题。在该地区，凯尔森式的专门法院模式，司法部门的审查制度和议会主权模式目前仍然并存。本文表明，诸如国家的法律家庭类型，专制的过去或政治分裂等现象在宪法审查模式的选择中起着重要作用。但是，只有将它们结合起来，才有可能导致特定的结果。