Up-356/04, U-I-455/06

Reference no.:
Up-356/04, U-I-455/06
OdlUS XV, 107 | 07.12.2006
In incriminating the criminal offence of endangering safety as determined in Article 145 of the Penal Code, the legislature used the term “a serious threat”, which is open to interpretation. The meaning of the term used can be determined by means of the established interpretation methods with regard to the concrete case.
As the challenged judgments provided extensive and sound reasoning why the complainant's conduct fulfilled the elements of the criminal offence of endangering safety, it is obvious that the complainant's right to the equal protection of rights determined in Article 22 of the Constitution was not violated by such judgments.
Merely the fact that the term used in the statute is open to interpretation does not entail that offenders in a concrete case cannot know in advance that by their conduct they will fulfill the disposition of the criminal offence.
Document in PDF:
Type of procedure:
review of constitutionality and legality of regulations and other general acts constitutional complaint
Type of act:
individual act
Date of application:
Date of decision:
Type of decision adopted:
Outcome of proceedings:
dismissal non-acceptance of a constitutional complaint