DECISION No 5 OF FEBRUARY 18, 1997 ON CC No 25/96
The decision was taken in response to the President of the Republic challenging the constitutionality of Art. 34 para 4 of the Law on Administrative Procedures and of Art. 9 para 3 of Decree 9 on operations of the management and staff in railway transport and also challenging the compliance of the same provisions with Art. 6 para 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
As regards the former provision, it is claimed to be in contravention to Art. 56 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court ruled there was no such contravention. According to Art. 120 para 2 of the Constitution citizens and legal entities are free to contest any administrative act that affects them except those listed expressly by the laws. The Legislature can provide for the exceptions in the court procedure to contest an administrative act only when such an exception does not affect Constitution-recognized fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens or when other higher Constitution-sanctioned value must be protected in a priority order. In the case in question the provision challenged just reproduces a constitution text and even for that reason alone it is impossible to state the provision is in contravention to the Constitution. The provision is in full compliance also with Art. 9 para 3 of the quoted international convention.
The latter challenged provision precludes the possibility to contest in court acts for disciplinary sanctions. The Court ruled that of all disciplinary sanctions it is only dismissal that affects a fundamental human right as laid down in the Constitution, the right to labor. Therefore it is inadmissible for an act related to this sanction to be excluded from judicial control. In the "dismissal" hypothesis the provision is unconstitutional and disagrees with the international instrument.