U-I-31/94

Reference no.:
U-I-31/94
Objavljeno:
Official Gazette RS, no. 78/94 and OdlUS III, 112 | 13.10.1994
ECLI:
ECLI:SI:USRS:1994:U.I.31.94
Act:
Law on the ownership transformation of companies (Official Gazette RS, no. 55/92, 7/93, 31/93), points 4 and 6 of article 48 a and article 48 c.
Operative provisions:
The provisions of points 4 and 6 of article 48 a and article 48 c of the Law on ownership transformation of companies are not in conflict with the Constitution.
Abstract:
If a proposer impugns the provisions of a Law whose constitutionality the Constitutional Court has already judged, and in this do not cite new legal or factual reasons, the proposal is rejected because it is not possible to expect a different decision or solution of important legal questions from a fresh assessment of constitutionality.

It is not an encroachment on rights obtained if a legal void which has been created with the cessation of validity of the previous collective contract is regulated by a new collective contract.
Password:
Payment of reimbursement for annual leave - autonomy of regulation.
Retroactivity of a law.
Proposal for a new assessment - a fresh proceeding before the Constitutional Court.
Legal basis:
Constitution, article 155.
Law on the Constitutional Court, para. 1 of article 21.
Note:
In the reasoning of its decision the Constitutional Court refers to is decision no. U-I-133/93 (Official Gazette RS, no. 32/94).
The case under discussion is contextually linked to case no. U-I- 220/94.
Document in PDF:
The full text:
U-I-31/94
13/10-1994
 
DECISION
 
At a session held on 13/10-1994, in a proceeding for assessing constitutionality initiated on the proposal of Savinjska trgovska družba d.o.o., žalec, represented by Velimir Cugmas, attorney in Slovenski Bistrice, the Constitutional Court
 
found that:
 
The provisions of points 4 and 6 of article 48 a and article 48 c of the Law on ownership transformation of companies (Official Gazette RS, no. 55/92, 7/93, 31/93) are not in conflict with the Constitution.
 
Reasoning
 
A.
 
The proposer proposes that the Constitutional Court assess the constitutionality of points 4 and 6 of article 48 a and article 48 c f the Law on the ownership transformation of companies (hereinafter: ZLPP), because it is supposed to be in conflict with article 155 of the Constitution. He claims that he has established that the review body in accordance with the impugned provisions of ZLPP did not create a business fund at a level of 6% of the average value of social capital and that in 1992 and 1993, the proposer paid reimbursement for annual leave to workers which exceeds the gross pay of employees. The review body imposed on it the measure of regular statement of the level of social capital on 1/1-1994 and established a claim against workers who were paid a higher reimbursement for annual leave than that prescribed by general collective contract for the economy (hereinafter: SKPG). He believes that the impugned provision on which the decision of the review body was based encroaches on obtained rights of legal subjects. According to the conviction of the proposer, in the period in which there were no legal regulations which imposed the formation of a business fund at a level of 6% of the average value of social capital, profit could be distributed in its entirety among employees. In connection with the payment of reimbursement for annual leave, the proposer believes that economic subjects had the right in accordance with article 38 of SKPG (Official Gazette RS, no. 39/93) to arrange this matter autonomously. They could pay a higher reimbursement than the gross pay per employee amounted to, or purchase ownership shares in the company with these funds. The impugned provisions of points 4 and 6 of article 48 a of ZLPP, in the conviction of the proposer encroach on already obtained rights of companies and workers.
 
The Constitutional Court separated the proposal for assessing the constitutionality of point D in chapter "Validity of a collective contract" in connection with article 44 of the General Collective Contract for the economy and will continue the proceeding in this matter under number U-I-220/94.
 
B.
 
The Constitutional Court found by decision number U-I-133/93 (Official Gazette RS, no. 32/94) that articles 48 a and 48 c of the Law on ownership transformation of companies are not in conflict with article 155 of the Constitution. In this case, the central question was whether the impugned provisions are retroactive in effect, thus the same question as the proposer raises in this case. The proposer does not state any new legal or factual reasons, so it is not possible to expect a different decision from a fresh assessment of the impugned provisions.
 
In accordance with the above, the Constitutional Court decided the same as in case no U-I-133/93 and refers to the reasons cited there.
 
C.
 
The Constitutional Court adopted this decision on the basis of the first paragraph of article 21 of the Law on the Constitutional Court (Official Gazette RS, no. 15/74), composed of: president Dr. Tone Jerovšek and judges Mag. Matevž Krivic, mag. Janez Snoj, Dr. Janez šinkovec, Dr. Lovro šturm, Franc Testen, Dr. Lojze Ude and Dr. Boštjan M. Zupančič. The resolution was adopted with six votes against two. Judges Krivic and Ude voted against and Judge Ude gave a negative separate opinion.
 
 
President
Dr. Tone Jerovšek
Type of procedure:
review of constitutionality and legality of regulations and other general acts
Type of act:
statute
Applicant:
Savinjska trgovska družba d.o.o., žalec
Date of application:
14.02.1994
Date of decision:
13.10.1994
Type of decision adopted:
decision
Outcome of proceedings:
establishment – it is not inconsistent with the Constitution/statute
Document:
AN00680