Slika prikazuje notranjost Ustavnega sodišča

The applicant challenged decisions ordering and extending a restraining order prohibiting a person from approaching a certain person, location, or territory. He claimed that he was unable to make a statement on the measure or on the proposal of its extension.

The Constitutional Court ex officio initiated proceedings for a review of the constitutionality of the Police Tasks and Powers Act. As regards Article 60 of the Act, which regulates the procedure for exercising judicial control over ordering the measure at issue, the Constitutional Court decided that it is not inconsistent with the Constitution because the exclusion of an adversarial nature of the proceedings before the court of first instance is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the measure.

As regards Article 61 of the Act, by which the procedure for deciding on a proposal to extend the measure at issue is regulated, the Constitutional Court decided that it is contrary to the equal protection of rights determined by Article 22 of the Constitution, because neither the prior adversarial nature nor the subsequent adversarial nature of the proceedings before the court of first instance are ensured, while the legislature could ensure the adversarial nature of proceedings in a manner that would not reduce the effectiveness of the measure. The Constitutional Court imposed on the National Assembly the obligation to remedy the unconstitutionality within one year of the publication of the Decision in the Official Gazette and determined the manner of implementation of its Decision.

The Constitutional Court assessed that for the same reasons due to which the statutory regulation is inconsistent, the challenged two decisions extending the measure at issue violated the complainant’s right to the equal protection of rights determined by Article 22 of the Constitution, and dismissed the constitutional complaint against the two decisions ordering the same measure.