U-I-24/04

Reference no.:
U-I-24/04
Objavljeno:
Official Gazette RS, No. 40/2007 and OdlUS XVI, 26 | 20.04.2007
ECLI:
ECLI:SI:USRS:2007:U.I.24.04
Abstract:
In Decision No. U-I-247/96, dated 22 October 1998 (Official Gazette RS, No. 76/98 and OdlUS VII, 195), the Constitutional Court already called on the legislature to extend as soon as possible the time-limit for filing a request for the protection of legality determined in Article 559 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Official Gazette RS, No. 63/94 – hereinafter referred to as ZKP/94). By the new transitory provision of Article 20 of the Act Amending the Criminal Procedure Act (Official Gazette RS, No. 101/05 – ZKP/G), the legislature inter alia determined that a request for the protection of legality may be filed again. However, it limited such possibility only to instances of convictions on the basis of the enumerated laws or enumerated criminal offences. This primarily entails that it did not extend the time-limit determined in Article 559 of ZKP/94 in a manner such as follows from the above-mentioned Constitutional Court decision. Furthermore, this entails that it did not entirely ensure to the entitled persons determined in Article 559 of ZKP/94 the possibility to again file a request for the protection of legality against all judicial decisions which became final prior to the implementation of ZKP/94, i.e. prior to 1 January 1995, and against court proceedings which were pending prior to such final decisions. Such regulation resulted in a considerable number of cases which on one hand entail a gap in the law for the persons involved and thereby a violation of the principle of the equality of all before the law (the second paragraph of Article 14 of the Constitution), and on the other hand jeopardized their trust in the law, which is inconsistent with the principles of a state governed by the rule of law (Article 2 of the Constitution). Therefore, the Constitutional Court decided that the statutory regulation in force regarding the discussed part of the criminal procedure is inconsistent with Article 2 of the Constitution, as it still does not enable the abrogation of all decisions which were unjust for procedural and substantive reasons which were issued on the basis of regulations in force during and after the war, as well as the abrogation of such decisions in procedures involving extraordinary legal remedies, in the present case in a procedure involving a request for the protection of legality. Thus, the Constitutional Court could only issue a declaratory decision. Due to the fact that the legislature did not adopt a regulation in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 14 of the Constitution following the aforementioned decision of the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court also determined the manner of the execution of its decision.
 
Due to the fact that the Constitutional Court determined the manner of the execution of its decision, the petitioner may again file a request for the protection of legality. Therefore, the petitioner did not demonstrate legal interest for a review of the challenged acts, consequently the petition for the commencement of proceedings to review their constitutionality had to be rejected.
Document in PDF:
Type of procedure:
review of constitutionality and legality of regulations and other general acts
Type of act:
statute
Date of application:
03.02.2004
Date of decision:
20.04.2007
Type of decision adopted:
decision
Outcome of proceedings:
establishment – it is inconsistent with the Constitution/statute rejection
Document:
AN02994