Opravilna št.:
Evidenčni stavek:
In the case at issue, the Supreme Court changed the decisive reasons for the dismissal of a claim for the refund of the value added tax. In doing so, it relied on the finding that the complainant had not previously paid the value added tax whose refund she claimed. Due to the fact that such independent and complex finding, which in itself combines both factual and legal issues (e.g. observance of the rules on the order of priority for the payment of tax liabilities and the corresponding duties), was not, in any respect (factual or legal), a subject of review by the tax authorities and the Administrative Court, the complainant could not challenge it. The Supreme Court thus deprived the complainant of the right to a legal remedy determined by Article 25 of the Constitution. Due to the fact that the first modified position of the Supreme Court denies the existence of a claim for the refund of the value added tax, while on the other hand the second modified position presupposes that such claim has arisen, the decision of the Supreme Court is based on mutually contradictory reasons. Therefore, the complainant's right to the equal protection of rights determined by Article 22 of the Constitution, which prohibits judicial arbitrariness, was also violated.
Dokument v PDF obliki:
Vrsta zadeve:
constitutional complaint
Vrsta akta:
individual act
GPG KIPKOP d.o.o. – in liquidation, Ljubljana
Datum vloge:
Datum odločitve:
Vrsta odločitve:
Vrsta rešitve:
annulment or annulment ab initio