Reference no.:
The Constitutional Court rejects a request for the review of the constitutionality of a law if the conditions determined by the first paragraph of Article 23 of the Constitutional Court Act are not fulfilled. The safeguards stemming from Article 22 of the Constitution are also binding on the legislature within the framework of the legislative regulation of individual proceedings. Within the framework of fair proceedings, the right to be heard also presupposes that all legally relevant facts are established in the proceedings. The challenged regulation, on the contrary, establishes or enables the presumption of a debtor’s insolvency in a compulsory composition procedure initiated by creditors merely on the basis of the determination of the creditors’ claims, and, in addition to that, completely denies the debtor the possibility to make a statement regarding two facts that are decisive for the initiation of a compulsory composition procedure, namely regarding his or her own insolvency and regarding the existence of the creditors' claims. It therefore interferes with the debtor’s right to be heard and his or her right to a fair trial. In the assessment of the Constitutional Court, a statutory regulation that aims to achieve the effectiveness of financial restructuring in the interest of creditors with financial claims and that does not allow a debtor to effectively participate in the proceedings and essentially limits the content of the review of creditors' motions for compulsory composition to whether the creditors' claims fulfil the determined quota places too much weight on the principle of accelerated proceedings and the interests of creditors with financial claims compared to debtors' right to be heard and their right to a fair trial. The regulation is therefore not proportionate in the narrower sense and is thus inconsistent with Article 22 of the Constitution.
Document in PDF:
Type of procedure:
review of constitutionality and legality of regulations and other general acts
Type of act:
Okrožno sodišče v Celju
Date of application:
Date of decision:
Type of decision adopted:
Outcome of proceedings:
rejection establishment – it is inconsistent with the Constitution/statute