Reference no.: |
Up-223/17 |
Objavljeno: |
Unpublished | 21.06.2018 |
ECLI: |
ECLI:SI:USRS:2018:Up.223.17 |
Abstract: |
The reasoning of a court decision is an independent and essential element of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution. The original value of such reasoning lies in providing insight into the exact reasons for the decision – in particular to parties who were not successful in proceedings in which their rights, obligations, or legal interests were decided upon.
Stating reasons by referring to the established case law suffices from the viewpoint of the requirement that judicial decisions must be substantiated, which is guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution, unless special circumstances claimed by the party require a reply from the court that has not (yet) been provided in the established case law. The court acts as a uniform judicial authority in relation to the party; therefore, the party justifiably expects a clear explanation why the postponement of the enforcement cannot be substantiated, for example by the fact that criminal proceedings in which the creditor is charged with an attempt to abuse this very same enforcement are simultaneously pending.
|
Note: |
¤ |
Document in PDF: |
|
Type of procedure: |
constitutional complaint |
Type of act: |
individual act |
Applicant: |
Ramadan Tajroski, Koper |
Date of application: |
09.03.2017 |
Date of decision: |
21.06.2018 |
Type of decision adopted: |
decision |
Outcome of proceedings: |
annulment or annulment ab initio |
Document: |
AN03965 |