U-I-90/91

Reference no.:
U-I-90/91
Objavljeno:
OdlUS I, 30 | 07.05.1992
ECLI:
ECLI:SI:USRS:1992:U.I.90.91
Act:
Law on Foreigners (Official Gazette of RS, No. 1/91-I), Art. 12, Para 2
Operative provisions:
The Constitutional Court does not accept the initiative for evaluation of the constitutionality of the impugned provision of the Law.
Abstract:
The provision of the Law on Foreigners according to which a decision to refuse an issue of a visa and to prohibit or refuse an entry into the country is to be marked in a foreigner's passport, does not constitute an infringement of his personal rights and therefore is not in disharmony with the Constitution.

2. The Declaration of Human Rights has not the nature and authority of an international agreement, so the Constitutional Court cannot evaluate a statute being or not in accord with the Declaration.
Password:
Prohibition of a foreigner's entry into the country - marking it in the passport.

Inviolability of the integrity of human personality.
Legal basis:
Constitution 1991, Art. 8,

Constitution 1991, Art. 32, Para 3,

Constitution 1991, Art. 35

Constitution 1974, Art. 216
Document in PDF:
The full text:
U-I-90/91
7/5-1992
 
R E S O L U T I O N
 
At the meeting on May 7, 1992 the Constitutional Court discussed the initiative of the Council of Human Rights and fundamental Freedoms and
 
p a s s e d t h e f o l l o w i n g r e s o l u t i o n :
 
The Constitutional Court does not accept the initiative and will not institute the proceeding for evaluation of the constitutionality of Art. 12, Para 2 of the Law on Foreigners (Official Gazette of RS, No. 1/91-I).
 
R e a s o n s
 
The Council of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms gave an initiative to the Constitutional Court to evaluate the constitutionality of Art. 12, Para 2 of the Law on Foreigners. The first paragraph of Art. 12 of the Law provides that an authority competent for state border crossing control may, for reasons set forth in Art. 10 of the Law, orally refuse to issue a visa, forbid the entry into the country or, in spite of a valid visa not allow the entry to a foreigner. According to Para 2 of Art. 12, which is the subject matter of the initiative for evaluation of constitutionality, the decision under the first paragraph of this Article is to be marked in the passport and is final.
 
The initiator that the preamble and the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights emphasize the importance of human dignity. And: everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status (Art. 2). The initiator also refers to Art. 216 of the 1974 Constitution which guarantees the inviolability of the integrity of human personality, personal or family life and other personal rights. The Council understands that an authority competent for state border crossing control cannot have the competence for making marks in a passport. In its opinion, such marks infringe personal rights of an individual and may be a basis for his discrimination before various authorities and his business and private life.
 
In its answer to the initiative the Legislation Board of the Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia claims, inter alia, that in this case we are facing a marking of an oral decision of a competent authority issued pursuant to statute. The measure taken is effective only as long as the reasons for refusal under Art. 10 of the Law on Foreigners exist. Therefore, the measure is always marked with a date. Without being marked in the passport the measure could not be efficiently exercized and, on the other hand, such marking makes possible the control of correctness and legality of action of competent authorities in implementing statutory powers. The Board further believes that marking a decision lawfully taken by an authority competent for state border crossing control in an official document used for crossing the state border constitutes no violation of the integrity of human personality, personal and family life and other personal rights (Art. 216 of the 1974 Constitution).
 
The initiative is not justified.
 
According to Art. 8 of the Constitution, statutes must also conform to international agreements binding on Slovenia. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has not the nature and the power an international agreement, so an evaluation of conformity of the impugned statutory provision with it is not possible.
 
The Constitution provides that into the country by foreigners and their stay in the country may be limited by statute (art. 32, Para 3). On this constitutional basis the Law on foreigners specifically enumerates the reasons due to which a foreigner is not allowed to enter the country or the issue of visa or permit of entry is refused to him (Art. 10). Further the Law authorizes the authority competent for state border crossing control to refuse orally, for the foregoing reasons, to issue a visa, to forbid the entry into the country or, in spite of a valid visa, not to allow the entry into the country to a foreigner (Art. 12, Para 1). Subject matter of the initiative only the provision of the second paragraph of Art. 12 according to which such decision of the competent authority is to be marked in the passport. According to the provisions of the Instruction on the Manner of the Implementation of the Law on Foreigners (Official Gazette RS, No. 19/91), a visa is issued on a special form and stamped in a passport (Art. 3, Para 3) and, further, a competent authority cancels a visa or permit by stamping the wording 'RAZVELJAVLJENO-ANNULE' over the visa or permit (Art. 2 of the Instruction and Appendix No. 2 to the Instruction).
 
The provision of Art. 216, Para 1 of the 1974 Constitution to which the initiator refers guaranteed the inviolability of the integrity of human personality, personal and family life and other personal rights. Similar is the provision of Art. 35 of the current Constitution according to which the inviolability of the physical and mental integrity of each person of his privacy and hid personal rights is guaranteed.
 
The initiator's that marking a decision under Art. 12 of the Law in a passport constitutes an infringement of personal rights of an individual and that it may be a basis for his discrimination before various authorities and in his business and private life, is not justified. This viewpoint is not supported by specific indication of what is meant by the violation of human dignity or personal rights of an individual. In a foreigners passport is marked, pursuant to the impugned provision, only the decision to refuse the issue of a visa, forbid or refuse the entry into the country and not the reasons on which the decision is based; therefore, such mark does not constitute an infringement of personal rights of an individual.
 
For the above reasons the Constitutional Court resolved, on the basis of Art. 15 of the Law on the Procedure of the Constitutional Court of SR Slovenia (Official Gazette of SRS, No. 39/74 and 28/76), not to accept the initiative and not to institute the proceeding of evaluation of constitutionality.
 
P r e s i d e n t :
Dr. Peter Jambrek
signed
 
Type of procedure:
review of constitutionality and legality of regulations and other general acts
Type of act:
statute
Applicant:
Svet za varstvo človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin (Council of Human Gights and Fundamental Freedoms)
Date of application:
17.10.1991
Date of decision:
07.05.1992
Type of decision adopted:
ruling
Outcome of proceedings:
non-acceptance of petition
Document:
AN00043