U-I-213/03

Reference no.:
U-I-213/03
Objavljeno:
Official Gazette RS, No. 13/2006 and OdlUS XV, 2 | 12.01.2006
ECLI:
ECLI:SI:USRS:2006:U.I.213.03
Abstract:
In Decision No. U-I-220/03 the Constitutional Court already emphasized that the measures of supervision carried out by the [Securities Market] Agency on the basis of the Securities Market Act (ZTVP-1) do not have a punitive character. Thus, also the procedural provisions challenged by the petitioner are not of a character such that the procedural guarantees which are otherwise required when criminal offenses are considered must thereby be ensured.
 
From the contents of Art. 314 of ZTVP-1 it follows that a party can make a statement regarding all the facts and circumstances that are important for the decision. Therefore, the challenged provision does not interfere with the petitioner's right determined in Art. 22 of the Constitution, and is not inconsistent with such.
 
The regulation, according to which the Agency generally decides in a procedure without a hearing, does not in itself influence the party's right to make a statement, and is therefore not inconsistent with the right to the equal protection of rights.
 
The regulation which limits the party's right to make a statement only for a certain period of time during proceedings is a constitutionally admissible interference with the right to the equal protection of rights, as thereby the pursued goal of the acceleration and concentration of proceedings can be achieved. Furthermore, the weight of the consequences is proportional to the weight of the pursued goal, as the party has a sufficient possibility to make a statement concerning all the relevant aspects of the case.
 
The regulation determined in Art. 325.2.1 of ZTVP-1, which refers to the judicial exercise of such rights in the procedure determined in Art. 325.3 of ZTVP-1, does not interfere with the right to judicial protection determined in Art. 23.1 of the Constitution, and is also not inconsistent with such.
 
The purpose of fees and compensations is payment for a service performed, thus the allegations that fees and compensations have the character of criminal sanctions are unsubstantiated. Between the amount of a fee and the service for which the fee is charged there must be a direct connection and a rational proportion. A fee which is not assessed in such proportion with the service could limit the access of legal subjects to such rights, and thereby the principle of a law-governed state determined in Art. 2 of the Constitution would be violated.
 
It is left to the Agency to determine the amount of the fee for filing an objection, as it falls within the field of its discretion. Art. 25 of the Constitution would be interfered with only if the Agency unreasonable exceeded the field of its own judgment.
Document in PDF:
Type of procedure:
review of constitutionality and legality of regulations and other general acts
Type of act:
statute
Date of application:
03.11.2003
Date of decision:
12.01.2006
Type of decision adopted:
0x
Outcome of proceedings:
establishment – it is not inconsistent with the Constitution/statute
Document:
AN02836