U-I-41/00

Reference no.:
 U-I-41/00
Objavljeno:
 OdlUS XI, 147 | 04.07.2002
ECLI:
 ECLI:SI:USRS:2002:U.I.41.00
Act:
 Violations Act (Official Gazette SRS, Nos. 25/83, 36/83 - et corr., 42/85, 47/87 and 5/90 and Official Gazette RS, Nos. 10/91, 13/93, 39/96, 61/96 - OdlUS, 35/97, 73/97 - OdlUS, 87/97, 73/98, 31/2000 and 24/01) (ZP), Arts, 5.5, 202
Operative provisions:
 The petition for the commencement of the proceedings to review the constitutionality of Art. 202 of the Violations Act (Official Gazette SRS, Nos. 25/83, 36/83 - et corr., 42/85, 47/87 and 5/90 and Official Gazette RS, Nos. 10/91, 13/93, 39/96, 61/96 - OdlUS, 35/97, 73/97 - OdlUS, 87/97, 73/98, 31/2000 and 24/01), is rejected. The petition for the commencement of the proceedings to review the constitutionality of Art. 5.5 of the Violations Act (Official Gazette SRS, Nos. 25/83, 36/83 - et corr., 42/85, 47/87 and 5/90 and Official Gazette RS, Nos. 10/91, 13/93, 39/96, 61/96 - OdlUS, 35/97, 73/97 - OdlUS, 87/97, 73/98, 31/2000 and 24/01), is dismissed.
Abstract:
 As the complainant filed the request for judicial protection against the final decision of a judge for violations with which they were imposed a secondary sentence of a termination of validity of a driving licence on the basis of the Constitutional Court decision No. U-I-279/99, dated 16 March 2000, they do not have a legal interest for the review of the provisions of the Violations Act (hereinafter ZP), which did not allow this extraordinary legal remedy in cases of imposed secondary sentence of a termination of validity of a driving licence.

In part in which the complainant challenged the provisions of Arts.5.5 of ZP, the petition had to be dismissed as unfounded, as the Constitutional Court with Decision No. U-I-213/98, dated 16 March 2000 established that the provisions of the Road Transport Safety Act which determine the imposition of a secondary sentence of a a termination of validity of a driving licence, are not inconsistent with the Constitution. As the petitioner did not state convincing reasons, which the Constitutional Court had not yet reviewed and which would lead to a different decision, the petition had to be dismissed as manifestly unfounded.
Password:
 Legal interest (as a procedural condition for Constitutional Court proceedings).
Principles of a State governed by the rule of law.
Principle of proportionality.
New adjudiaction of the Constitutional Court on the same case.
Manifestly unfounded petition.
Concurring opinion of a Constitutinal Court judge.
Legal basis:
 Constitution (URS), Art. 2
Constitutional Court Act (ZUstS), Arts. 25, 26.2
Document in PDF:
Type of procedure:
 review of constitutionality and legality of regulations and other general acts
Type of act:
 statute
Date of application:
 16.02.2000
Date of decision:
 04.07.2002
Type of decision adopted:
 ruling
Outcome of proceedings:
 rejection
Document:
 AN02671