Since private case law and legal writing created the notion, more than a century ago, the abuse of right spread in most of legal systems and disciplines. Nevertheless, constitutional law still seems to be refractory to really greet the notion. As a result, the relevance and the existence of this notion within the field of constitutional law can be questioned. Such an interrogation implies to draw the particular characteristics the abuse of right may present, but also to consider the role it might play in the constitutional legal technique and dogmatic. First, a rigorous definition of the abuse of right must be given by granting beforehand a place to subjective right in constitutional law. Therefore, we may observe the frequent appearance of this qualification with regard to the constitutional practice, both in institutional law and in the field of fundamental rights. Regarding contentious matters, the litigation efficiency of this relatively flexible notion appears to be limited, in spite of its undeniable autonomy as a mean of invalidation compared with others techniques like fraud to the constitution, violation of the constitution, abuse of power or abuse of procedure. Furthermore, the prohibition of the abuse of right appears to be an immanent principle of the constitutional system, aiming, by an exceptional use, to amend the law of the constitution and to protect some of its values, such as the grasping process of the political relations by the law or the protection of democracy.Thus, a real theory of the abuse of right in constitutional law may be brought out.
