U-I-58/04

Reference no.:
U-I-58/04
Abstract:
The mere fact that the property was transferred from private to state ownership on two legal bases does not by itself indicate that the legislature had a sound reason which would justify a different regulation regarding taking damages, awarded at the nationalization, into account. Moreover, the legislature did not have any other sound reason which would justify a different regulation of the legal position of persons whose property was nationalized on the basis of the Expropriation Act of 1957 in comparison to persons whose property was nationalized on the basis of a regulation, determined in Art. 3 of the Denationalization Act. Therefore, a regulation which excludes persons whose property was nationalized on the basis of the Expropriation Act of 1957 from the circle of persons entitled to denationalization is inconsistent with Art. 14.2 of the Constitution.
 
Such a regulation follows from the requirement of gratuity, determined in Art. 4 of the Denationalization Act. Therefore, the Constitutional Court annulled the above stated requirement, insofar as it applies to property which was nationalized on the basis of the Expropriation Act of 1957.
Document in PDF:
Type of procedure:
review of constitutionality and legality of regulations and other general acts
Type of act:
statute
Applicant:
Tadej Bogataj and Roža Marija Misson Tominšek, Ljubljana
Date of application:
01.03.2004
Date of decision:
10.02.2005
Type of decision adopted:
0x
Outcome of proceedings:
annulment or annulment ab initio
Document:
AN02775