Up-341/99

Reference no.:
Up-341/99
Objavljeno:
Official Gazette RS, No. 85/01 and OdlUS X, 227 | 04.10.2001
ECLI:
ECLI:SI:USRS:2001:Up.341.99
Act:
Constitutional complaint of A.A. against order of the Supreme Court No. VIII Ips 98/99, dated 5 October 1999, in connection with order of the Higher Labour and Social Court No. Pdp 604/97, dated 14 January 1999, and judgment of the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court No. II Pd 3012/94, dated 17 January 1997
Operative provisions:
The constitutional complaint of A.A. against order of the Supreme Court No. VIII Ips 98/99, dated 5 October 1999, in connection with order of the Higher Labour and Social Court No. Pdp 604/97, dated 14 January 1999, and judgment of the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court No. II Pd 3012/94, dated 17 January 1997, is dismissed.
Abstract:
It clearly and unambiguously proceeds from the statute that a worker must be active in protecting their own rights, not only respecting the time limits but also regarding the exhaustion of prescribed pre-judicial protection. This applies not only to the cases of an objection against the written orders of an employer but also to the cases of an interference with the rights through acts (conducts). Furthermore, the provisions of Art. 105 of the Employment Relations Act cannot be interpreted in a way that the worker has an unlimited time limit or an unlimited possibility of choice whether and when they will exercise their rights. Clarity and certainty in mutual legal relations (also in employment relations) is in the interest of the both parties to such a relation and also in the interest of ensuring effective judicial protection.

The complainant has not reacted to the (unlawful) conduct of the employer for almost two years. According to the unambiguous provision of Art. 83.2 of the Basic Rights Stemming from Employment Relations Act in connection with Art. 80.2 of the same Act they can no longer request judicial protection against the violation of the above-stated rights. Not for the reason of the challenged standpoint of the Supreme Court, but for the reasons that are exclusively on their part. In this part the complainant cannot successfully refer to Art. 105 of the Employment Relations Act, as this provision could be applied only if the employer does not decide their request against the implementation of the non- final order. The right to judicial protection pursuant to Art. 23 of the Constitution does not grant the right to precisely determined judicial protection. The complainant (would) was granted judicial protection against the unlawful termination of employment, indeed given the due filing of an adequate request and fulfilling other procedural condition, also according to the challenged standpoint. However, Art. 23 of the Constitution does not provide more than that.
Password:
Employment relations: Termination.
Exhaustion of preliminary protection of rights with the employer. Interpretation of a statute.
Constitutional rights and freedoms: Right to judicial protection.
Right to legal remedy.
Dissenting opinion of a Constitutional Court judge.
Legal basis:
Constitution, Arts. 23, 25
Employment Relations Act (ZDR), Arts. 102.a, 105
Constitutional Court Act (ZUstS), Art. 59.1
Document in PDF:
Type of procedure:
constitutional complaint
Type of act:
individual act
Date of application:
28.12.1999
Date of decision:
04.10.2001
Type of decision adopted:
decision
Outcome of proceedings:
dismissal
Document:
AN02493