 STATING BY THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT THAT ITS DECISIONS ARE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. CASEIulia Boghirnea
Jurnalul de Studii Juridice, 2013, vol. 1-2, 139-143 Abstract: The petitioner-plaintiff B. M-A, by his legal representative B.A has invoked at the hearing on 25 February 1993 the constitutional challenge of the Decree No 92/1950 and of the Council of Magistracy Decision No 606/1959. In the motivation of the exception it is sustained that the building located in Miercurea Sibiului, No 679, the property of K.B – the father of the petitioner-plaintiff – has been, in an abusive manner, taken by the state, the owner’s family being evicted from the building in November 1948 without any legal base, because it was not stated by the Annex of the Decree No 92/1950, though it has been owned by the state for 2 years, and has been included in the annex of the Council of Magistracy’s Decision No 606/1959 after 10 years of illegal ownership. Regarding the Decree No 92/1950, which represented the base for the nationalization, it is stated that it is unconstitutional, because it has been adopted disregarding Art 8 of the 1948 Constitution, which stated, at that moment, the protection of the right to ownership. At the moment of invoking the exception in front of the court of appeal, the respondent was absent, so he could not express his standpoint regarding it. Because the initial ruling of 25 February 1993 for the notification of the Constitutional Court did not answered the compulsory legal requirement, stated by Art 23 Para 5 of the Law No 47/1992, was handled back to the court, at 17 March 1993, with the purpose of expressing its opinion regarding the invoked exception, accompanied by the case file. As a consequence of the address for handling back, the Sibiu Tribunal delivers at 29 March 1993 the case file no 1435/1990 and the ruling of 25 March 1993 completed with its opinion regarding the exception. The court considered the exception grounded, because the 1948 Constitution, in force until 24 September 1952 guaranteed the right to ownership, situation which has not been taken into account by the adoption of the Decree for nationalization. C.M.D No 606/1959 completed the annexes to the Decree No 92/1950, so that it is unconstitutional, for the same reasons. The court also considers that the two documents attacked are unconstitutional also in the light of the statements of the actual Constitution. The case has been suspended until the solving of the exception (Decision No 27/1993 of the Constitutional Court, published in the Official Gazette No 163/1993). Keywords: constitutional; court (search for similar items in EconPapers) Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:lum:rev4rl:v:1-2:y:2013:i::p:139-143 Access Statistics for this article More articles in Jurnalul de Studii Juridice from Editura Lumen, Department of Economics on Behalf of Petre Andrei University Iasi |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.