Reference no.:
Official Gazette RS, No. 20/2011 | 10.03.2011
The first paragraph of Article 21 of the Referendum and Public Initiative Act is not inconsistent with the Constitution from the perspective of the principle that legal norms must be clear and definite (Article 2 of the Constitution). Not implementing a Constitutional Court decision (i.e. if an adopted act was dismissed at a referendum), although such entails a manifest unconstitutional consequence, is not, in and of itself, a sufficient reason due to which the Constitutional Court should, on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 21 of the Referendum and Public Initiative Act, interfere with the right to a referendum determined in Article 90 of the Constitution. With the possible dismissal of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (ZPIZ-2) at a referendum, the duty of the National Assembly to immediately implement the decisions of the Constitutional Court will not cease. Regardless of the limitations that proceed from the fact that the National Assembly is bound by the result of a referendum (Article 25 of the Referendum and Public Initiative Act), the National Assembly has the duty to implement Constitutional Court decisions without delay. The right to a pension must be primarily based on the insurance principle. In this sense, a pension is a property right and enjoys double constitutional protection – in accordance with both the first paragraph of Article 50 and Article 33 of the Constitution. This entails that it must to a certain degree ensure the continuity of a standard of living which insured persons had in their active period (i.e. income security), as a pension in a certain part (i.e. proportionally) substitutes for the income from which contributions for pension insurance were paid. As the Constitution defines pension insurance as a type of social insurance, also elements of reciprocity or solidarity are constitutionally admissible. However, the Constitution does not ensure a pension of a certain amount. The National Assembly did not demonstrate that the applicable statutory regulation of pension and disability insurance (i.e. Pension and Disability Insurance Act – ZPIZ-1) already today manifestly interferes with the right to social security determined in the first paragraph of Article 50 of the Constitution and that therefore the implementation of its amendments by the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (ZPIZ-2) is necessary for constitutional reasons. The unconstitutionality of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (ZPIZ-1) cannot today be substantiated by allegations and data by which the National Assembly and the Government can substantiate that changes in the pension system in the future are needed or even necessary for macroeconomic, public-finance, or demographic reasons. From the constitutional perspective, these reasons cannot be measured and therefore the Constitutional Court cannot take them into consideration in its review and also may not assess whether they are substantiated.
Document in PDF:
Type of procedure:
Type of act:
Date of application:
Date of decision:
Type of decision adopted:
Outcome of proceedings: