Up-267/11, U-I-45/11

Reference no.:
Up-267/11, U-I-45/11
Unpublished | 03.04.2014
The Constitutional Court is not competent to review whether the Supreme Court has lawfully applied the provisions of the Judicial Review of Administrative Acts Act regarding leave to appeal. The mere allegation that a substantive law has been violated cannot substantiate a violation of a human right.
It follows from the first paragraph of Article 70 of the Constitution that special rights to use national assets may be acquired if such are provided by law and subject to conditions established by law. The purpose of the statutory rules governing special rights to use national assets is to regulate the possibilities of establishing such rights for the benefit of an individual and to balance different competing interests when ensuring the public use of national assets.
The rules determining special rights to use national assets may be restrictive in relation to the public use of national assets. Therefore, such rules cannot generally be deemed void of the purpose of including the protection of individuals’ interests within the realm of the public interest. If such a purpose is obvious in a rule, individuals cannot be denied their right to request, within the scope of the interests of public law expressed in the statutory rule, that their interests be respected.
The answer to the question of whether a specific individual may justifiably refer to his legally protected position will depend on the answer to the question of the genuineness and factual state of the individual’s need for the statutory conditions for the establishment of a special right to use national assets, which express the interests of public law in the area at issue, to be consistently met. Such need can be substantiated by the actual impact of the limitation of the public use of public roads imposed by the right to a special use on the exercise of any of the individual’s rights. In such cases, the individual’s private interests cannot be distinguished from the public law interest in granting special rights only in accordance with the conditions and according to the procedure determined by law or a general act of a local community. A position determined within this context and the protected interest expressed thereby enable individuals to request only that the rules determining the abstract right to establish a special right to use national assets be respected, without enabling them to invoke a certain aspect of the decision, as is the case with public rights.
The standpoint of the court that in the procedure for granting a special right to use a public road a third party is never able to protect his or her legal rights violates the right determined by Article 22 of the Constitution.
Due to its erroneous standpoint that national assets fall within the classical individual power of the property owners of national assets and therefore the latter have the right to decide freely thereon, the Court failed to review whether in the procedure for granting a special right to use [national assets] the complainant could have ensured protection of any of his legal benefits. Thereby the Court violated the complainant’s right determined by Article 22 of the Constitution.
The petitioners do not have legal interest for the initiation of the procedure for the review of the constitutionality or legality of a regulation that has ceased to be in force if they do not demonstrate that the consequences of the unconstitutionality or unlawfulness could be remedied by the possible granting of the petition.
Document in PDF:
Type of procedure:
review of constitutionality and legality of regulations and other general acts constitutional complaint
Type of act:
statute individual act
Date of application:
Date of decision:
Type of decision adopted:
Outcome of proceedings:
dismissal annulment or annulment ab initio rejection