Constitutional court case law

Search case law (3730 items)

Case number:
Up-195/13, U-I-67/16
ECLI:
ECLI:SI:USRS:2017:Up.195.13
Challenged act:
Operative provisions:
 
Abstract:
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.
 
Thesaurus:
Legal basis:
Cases joined:
Full text:
[Publisher's Note: The full text of this Decision/Order is available only in Slovene. The text published below is a summary prepared for the annual report.]
 
Recalculation of Pensions
 
In case No. Up-195/13, U-I-67/16 (Decision dated 26 January 2017, Official Gazette RS, No. 9/17), the Constitutional Court decided on the constitutional complaint of a retiree with regard to whom it became clear after his pension had already been determined with legal finality that its calculation did not take into account the differences in his salary from 1995 until 1997 as acknowledged by a Labour Court Judgment. The Pension and Disability Insurance Institute rejected his request for a recalculation of his pension and this decision was also affirmed by all of the courts, including the Supreme Court, that decided in the ensuing judicial proceedings. Their decisions proceeded from the position that the complainant cannot succeed with his request for a recalculation of his pension, as neither the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (PDIA-1) nor the General Administrative Procedure Act regulate a special legal remedy that would enable an error in the calculation of a pension to be remedied. As a result, an error that occurred during the calculation of a pension cannot be remedied. During the consideration of the constitutional complaint the question arose whether, in light of the nature of the right to a pension (the first paragraph of Article 50 of the Constitution), which, as a general rule, is exercised over a long period of time, it is admissible that the PDIA-1 did not determine any mechanisms for remedying errors in the calculation of a pension with ex nunc effect. Therefore, the Constitutional Court initiated proceedings to review its constitutionality.
 
On the basis of the first paragraph of Article 50 of the Constitution, citizens have the right to social security, including the right to a pension, under the conditions provided by law. It explicitly follows from the Constitution (the second paragraph of Article 15) that, as part of the statutory regulation of the right to a pension, the legislature must also regulate the manner of its exercise. The framework of the constitutionally imposed regulation of the manner of exercise of the right to a pension also includes regulation of the procedure for granting this right, which must include establishment of the facts that constitute the basis of a concrete decision that is intended to enable the beneficiary to exercise his or her right to a pension.
 
In contrast to the PDIA/92, which was in force before the PDIA-1, and the PDIA-2, which succeeded the PDIA-1 and is currently in force, the PDIA-1 did not enable errors that occurred during the procedure for calculating a pension to be remedied with ex nunc effect. While the PDIA-1 was in force, once a decision on the calculation of a pension attained legal finality, a recalculation of the pension was excluded in all instances that did not fulfil the conditions for the lodging of an extraordinary legal remedy in accordance with the general procedural rules, regardless of the gravity of the error at issue. Such a regulation did not take into consideration the particularities of the exercise of the right to a pension.
 
The Constitutional Court frequently emphasises the importance of respect for the principle of legal finality. A right granted by an individual act shall no longer be interfered with, as such would weaken trust in the legal order. However, the amendment of a decision concerning the calculation of a pension in order to remedy errors and thus benefit the affected individual does not collide with any other personal interest. As a result, such a procedural possibility would not weaken trust in the legal order, but, on the contrary, it would reinforce it. Nevertheless, under the PDIA-1 the risk stemming from potential errors in the calculation of a pension had to be borne solely by the beneficiary throughout the entire time he or she was receiving the pension.
 
The specific characteristic of the right to a pension, i.e. the fact that it is exercised over a long period of time, substantiates the need for a specific legal remedy that enables errors to be remedied also after legal finality. As such a legal remedy already existed under the law previously in force (the PDIA/92) and the legislature reintroduced it with the PDIA-2, the Constitutional Court held that when enacting the PDIA-1 the legislature did not have any reasonable grounds for omitting this specific legal remedy. It therefore decided that the PDIA-1 was inconsistent with the first paragraph of Article 50 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Constitutional Court granted the constitutional complaint, abrogated the judgments of the courts, and remanded the case for new adjudication.
 
Type of procedure:
review of constitutionality and legality of regulations and other general acts
constitutional complaint
Type of act:
statute
individual act
Applicant:
Boris Taurer, Ljubljana
Date of application:
18. 2. 2013
Date of Decision:
26. 1. 2017
Type of decision adopted:
decision
Outcome of proceedings:
establishment – it is inconsistent with the Constitution/statute
annulment or annulment ab initio
Published:
Official Gazette RS, No. 9/2017
Document:
AN03822

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.
aasfdsfsddbrowseraasfdsfsddbrowser