Вид на акта
искане
Дата
01-01-1970 г.
Към дело
/

  DECISION No. 11 OF JULY 9, 1996 ON CC No. 10/96

The Constitutional Court decision on the motion by a group of Members of Parliament ruled that Clause 4 of the Law on the Amendment to the Law on Reinstatement of Ownership Over Nationalised Immovable Property (LALROONIP) contravened the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court based its decision on Art. 7 of the LALROONIP providing that the owners of property under Arts. 1 and 2 of the law in question had been allowed a year to claim reinstatement of ownership under definite conditions. The Constitutional Court had already passed decisions based on the text in question. From the point of view of the Constitution owners shall not be treated unequally vis a vis the substantial law grounds of hearing the claim while owners whose claims had not been heard yet for various reasons will be underprivileged vis a vis the protection of property. The period under Art. 7 is preclusive. Claims had already been made or else are precluded because the deadline had been missed. Once the time limit is over the grounds of filing a claim shall not be revised. This runs contrary to the principles of the law-abiding and democratic state laid down in the preamble to the Constitution and in Art. 17 paras 1 and 3. Clause 4 of the LALROONIP changes the grounds of filing a claim which by itself is an anticonstitutional approach and makes it impossible to protect the right to property. It was in this sense that the Constitutional Court ruled on CC No. 4/95, CC No. 24/95 and CC No. 29/95.