Reference no.: |
U-I-114/16, Up-535/16 |
Objavljeno: |
Unpublished | 22.11.2018 |
ECLI: |
ECLI:SI:USRS:2018:U.I.114.16 |
Abstract: |
Where the criminal offence in question was committed or property acquired before the entry into force of the Confiscation of Illicitly Acquired Property Act, the court at issue adopted the contested orders on the basis of a statutory provision that the Constitutional Court had already established was inconsistent with the second and first paragraphs of Article 155 of the Constitution. As the contested orders are based on an unconstitutional statutory provision, equal treatment of the complainant (the second paragraph of Article 14 of the Constitution), who in filing a constitutional complaint claimed the inconsistency of the contested provision with the Constitution due to the retrospective effect of the Confiscation of Illicitly Acquired Property Act, would require that the Constitutional Court abrogate the contested orders and remand the case to the court for new adjudication. As the contested orders ceased to be in force, the Constitutional Court merely established a violation of the complainant’s right determined by the above-stated provision of the Constitution.
If the Constitutional Court has already abrogated a regulation, the petitioner does not demonstrate a legal interest for a new review thereof.
Petitioners do not have a legal interest if they do not demonstrate that the possible granting of the petition would improve their legal position.
|
Note: |
¤ |
Document in PDF: |
|
Type of procedure: |
review of constitutionality and legality of regulations and other general acts constitutional complaint |
Type of act: |
statute individual act |
Applicant: |
Rudolf Trček, Ljubljana |
Date of application: |
27.06.2016 |
Date of decision: |
22.11.2018 |
Type of decision adopted: |
decision |
Outcome of proceedings: |
establishment of a human right violation rejection |
Document: |
AN03935 |