Up-2089/06, U-I-106/07

Reference no.:
Up-2089/06, U-I-106/07
Official Gazette RS, No. 102/2007 and OdlUS XVI, 111 | 18.10.2007
Proceedings which the Civil Procedure Act envisages for determining the value of the subject of dispute cannot be alleged to be inconsistent with the Constitution from the viewpoint of the second paragraph of Article 14 and Article 22. Therefore, it is not inconsistent with the Constitution if the court of first instance does not call on parties to proceedings to supplement their complaint if the parties have mechanisms by means of which they can initiate a revision procedure themselves. It is thus not inconsistent with the Constitution if the legislature leaves it to parties to attend to extraordinary legal remedies themselves.
Due to the fact that the challenged order on the rejection of a revision is based on the statutory regulation which the Constitutional Court determined is not inconsistent with the Constitution, also the allegations contained in the constitutional complaint regarding the consequences of not respecting obligations which are imposed on courts by means of Article 45 of the Civil Procedure Act had to be dismissed for the same reasons. An incomplete preliminary examination of the complaint can entail a violation of the law (which, however, is not reviewed by the Constitutional Court), whereas it cannot be concluded thereupon that the constitutional complainants' human right to the equal protection of rights was violated, as this circumstance did not place the parties in the discussed case in an unequal position regarding the mechanisms by means of which they can initiate the revision procedure themselves. The position that the value of the subject of dispute as alleged by the constitutional complainants is inconsistent with the second paragraph of Article 41 of the Civil Procedure Act according to which the value of the subject of dispute must be stated for each defendant separately is not a matter which falls within the scope of constitutional provisions on human rights, but merely concerns the question of the correct application of procedural law, which the Constitutional Court does not review. The Constitutional Court therefore dismissed the allegations regarding the violation of Article 22 of the Constitution. The constitutional complainants cannot substantiate the violation of their right to private property (Article 33 of the Constitution) by alleging that the challenged decision also interfered with the ownership right of other owners in the residential-cum-commercial building. The Constitution does not ensure the right to revision as an extraordinary legal remedy against judicial decisions issued in the second instance, therefore the constitutional complainants' right to legal remedies (Article 25 of the Constitution) could not be violated only because their application for revision was rejected.
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:
establishment – it is not inconsistent with the Constitution/statute dismissal