Constitutional court case law

Search case law (3683 items)

Case number:
Up-653/15
ECLI:
ECLI:SI:USRS:2015:Up.653.15
Challenged act:
Operative provisions:
Abstract:
One of the more important expressions of the right to the equal protection of rights (Article 22 of the Constitution) is the right to adversarial proceedings or the right to be heard in proceedings. This right provides a party to proceedings with the opportunity to present his or her standpoints under conditions that do not put him or her in a substantially worse position in relation to the opposing party, so that in this manner he or she can influence the decision of the courts in cases that interfere with his or her rights and interests.
 
The Constitutional Court has already adopted the position that the adversarial nature of proceedings must be ensured also in legal remedy proceedings and that the right to be heard in proceedings requires that legal remedies be two-sided (i.e. that before the decision of the appellate or Supreme Court is adopted the legal remedy must be served on the opposing party, who can reply thereto).
 
The Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings, and Compulsory Winding-up Act assigned the shareholders of the debtor the position of party to the second instance proceedings upon the initiation of the bankruptcy procedure by granting them the right to appeal against the order to initiate the bankruptcy procedure. The shareholders of the debtor must thus have the same legal position in proceedings also in the phase of replying to an appeal, on the basis of which the court can issue an order initiating a bankruptcy procedure against the debtor. Given its legal position as a party to the second instance proceedings, the complainant should have had the right to be heard regarding the appeal of the creditors who proposed the bankruptcy procedure, but it did not have such right. The Constitutional Court held that the contested order of the Higher Court violates the complainant’s right to be heard in proceedings and is therefore inconsistent with the right to the equal protection of rights determined by Article 22 of the Constitution.
Thesaurus:
Legal basis:
Cases joined:
Full text:
Type of procedure:
constitutional complaint
Type of act:
individual act
Applicant:
GARNOL, d. o. o., Kranj
Date of application:
10. 9. 2015
Date of Decision:
5. 11. 2015
Type of decision adopted:
decision
Outcome of proceedings:
annulment or annulment ab initio
Published:
Official Gazette RS, No. 87/2015
Document:
AN03845

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