U-I-287/05

By making generalized allegations that not all criminal offences for which a perpetrator is prosecuted ex officio are of such nature to substantiate ex lege termination of the employment of a person in the military who was convicted of such criminal offence by a final judgment, the applicant did not substantiate the alleged inconsistency of the challenged regulation with the right to choose employment freely.

 

The interpretation that in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 94 of the Defence Act, an employer has the right to decide whether the nature of the criminal offence substantiates the termination of an employment contract, does not have a basis in the Act.

 

The legislature had sound reasons to differently regulate the conditions regarding not having a criminal record as one of the conditions for the employment of persons in the military and of other civil servants.

 

The inconsistency of the challenged regulation with the principle of legal certainty cannot be substantiated by allegations that the legislature should determine in more detail criminal offences which would automatically prevent a person from serving in the armed forces as a professional, as such follows clearly from the challenged regulation.

 

Petitioners do not have legal interest if they do not demonstrate that the challenged provision directly interferes with their legal position.