Constitutional court case law

Search case law (3683 items)

Case number:
Up-195/13, U-I-67/16
Challenged act:
Operative provisions:
On the basis of Article 50 of the Constitution and under the conditions determined by law, citizens have the right to a pension. The Constitution expressly imposes on the legislature the obligation to regulate the manner of its exercise in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 15 of the Constitution. The constitutional requirement of substantive regulation of the conditions under which the right to a pension is exercised is, due to the nature of this right, not exhausted in the regulation that defines the right as such. The beneficiary’s exercise of the right presupposes that such right is concretised in an individual act. Therefore, the framework of the constitutionally imposed regulation of the manner of exercise of the right to social security, including the right to a pension, also includes the regulation of the procedure that should enable the individual to exercise this right.
The constitutional review of the statutory regulation of the manner of exercise of a human right is restrained and, as a general rule, limited to the assessment of whether the legislature had reasonable grounds to choose the measures that determine the manner of the exercise of the right. In such context, the reasonableness of the grounds should be understood as the relation between the regulation and the objective, i.e. as the requirement that there be a substantive connection between the regulation at issue and the subject of the regulation.
By the Pension and Disability Insurance Act that was in force from 1 January 2000 until 31 December 2012, the legislature determined that the right to a pension in accordance with the obligatory pension and disability insurance scheme shall be exercised under the provisions of the act regulating the general administrative procedure. In accordance with the legislature’s assessment at that time, the particularities of the exercise of the right to a pension did not justify the need to introduce a special legal remedy for remedying possibly very serious errors in granting, ex nunc, such right that is adapted to such particularities. Therefore, the general regulation remained in place. There are no reasonable grounds for a regulation that is not adapted to the nature of the right to a pension. Hence, the regulation was inconsistent with the first paragraph of Article 50 of the Constitution.
Since the challenged court decisions are based on a regulation that was inconsistent with the right to a pension determined by the first paragraph of Article 50 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court granted the constitutional complaint and abrogated the judgments of the Supreme and Higher Courts, and of the court of first instance.
Legal basis:
Cases joined:
Full text:
Type of procedure:
review of constitutionality and legality of regulations and other general acts
constitutional complaint
Type of act:
individual act
Boris Taurer, Ljubljana
Date of application:
18. 2. 2013
Date of Decision:
26. 1. 2017
Type of decision adopted:
Outcome of proceedings:
establishment – it is inconsistent with the Constitution/statute
annulment or annulment ab initio
Official Gazette RS, No. 9/2017

Search tips

All decisions the Constitutional Court adopted since independence of Slovenia, with the exception of orders rejecting constitutional complaints or not accepting them for consideration on the merits that contain as reasoning only the reference to the statutory basis of the decision and the composition of the panel of the Constitutional Court (the fourth paragraph of Article 55c of the Constitutional Court Act), are published on this website.

Brief instructions

Enter one or more search terms in the blank field. If your search returns too many results, try to refine it by using more precise search terms. You can also use quotation marks if you search for a precise phrase containing several words. To start your search, click on the search button.

An advanced search option is also available where you can select additional criteria, such as the date of decision, type of decision adopted, etc.