The Constitutional Court decided on a constitutional complaint against a judgment of the Administrative Court. The Administrative Court rejected the complainant’s appeal against a decision by which the administrative authority rejected his claim for monetary compensation for the damage that ensued due to his erasure from the register of permanent residents on the basis of the Act Regulating Damage Sustained as a Result of Erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents.

According to established constitutional case law, the requirement to respect the fundamental procedural safeguard of impartial decision-making is a constituent part of fair proceedings, and this requirement also applies in procedures before authorities deciding on rights, obligations, and legal benefits that are not courts. As the decision-making of an administrative authority on an appeal against an administrative act entails the decision-making of a state authority on the rights, obligations, and legal benefits of individuals, the constitutional safeguard of impartial decision-making must also be observed in appellate administrative procedures. This entails that an appellant must have the actual and effective opportunity to achieve that his or her reservations regarding the impartiality of an official who decided on an appeal against an administrative decision are considered by the court.

In his action against the administrative decision, the complainant alleged that a person whose impartiality was allegedly in doubt participated in the issuance of the second instance decision. It does not follow from the reasoning of the judgment of the Administrative Court that it even took note of this allegation. Since the Administrative Court failed to adopt a position regarding the allegation regarding the lack of impartiality of the official in question, it violated the complainant’s right to be heard determined by Article 22 of the Constitution.