Slovenia / Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia / U-I-157/16-12, Up-729/16-15, Up-55/17-20

Bank of Slovenia, European Central Bank. complaint against four court orders of the District Court (Okrožno sodišče) and a decision of the District Court (Okrožno sodišče), and also initiated a review of constitutionality procedure against the Criminal procedure Act (Zakon o kazenskem postopku).
Policy area
Economic and monetary affairs
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia
Typ
Decision
Decision date
19/09/2018
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:SI:USRS:2018:U.I.157.16
  • Slovenia / Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia / U-I-157/16-12, Up-729/16-15, Up-55/17-20

    Key facts of the case:

    The case originated in criminal (police) investigations against high-profile functionaries and employees of the Bank of Slovenia (BS), including its Governor, in connection with the deletion of subordinated bonds. During the procedures the contested orders were issued in an attempt to perform urgent investigative measures in order to secure evidence and traces of criminal acts of abuse of official position or official rights.

     

    The European Central Bank (ECB) refused access to and to give over the seized documents and demanded the cancellation of the orders as far as they apply to the documents, directly or indirectly entailing information or documents, belonging to ECB. It also demanded that the orders be repealed, which the court refused in the contested decision. BS argued that the orders were unconstitutional, as there was no judicial remedy available for the third persons, affected by such orders and the orders were not sufficiently substantiated. It also initiated the review of constitutionality procedure against the Criminal Procedure Act.

    Among other things, the ECB argued, that the decision of the District Court violates its rights under Art. 47 of the Charter and suggested to the Constitutional Court to pose a preliminary question to the CJEU regarding the interpretation of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union. It stated that the contested decision was based on facts and evidence, it had not been heard about. This was supposed to go against the right to a fair trial. Art. 47 of the Charter should be understood as an equality of arms provision and it should be understood as giving every party a right to be informed of all written and oral submissions.

     

    Beforehand, the Constitutional Court stressed, that locus standi under the individual constitutional complaint procedure may only be granted to a person, who can be a holder of those rights. It found that under national legislation neither of the applicants can be a holder of the constitutional rights they invoked, as they are both legal persons governed by public law and acting ex iure imperii, and therefore lack active legitimation to initiate such proceedings. However, the Constitutional Court then considered, whether in accordance with Art. 15 of the Constitution, which stipulates, that no human right may be restricted on the grounds that the Constitution does not recognize that right or freedom or recognizes it to a lesser extent, Art. 6 of the ECHR or Art. 47 of the Charter may demand from the Constitutional Court to accept the complaint. It found that under Art. 6 ECHR public legal entities are not considered holders of the right to fair trial. With regard to the EU Charter, the question of formal requirements for a constitutional complaint is, in line with the principle of procedural autonomy, a question of national law. EU law does not demand an unlimited access to a constitutional complaint. The invocation of Art. 47 therefore does not change the fact, that the ECB (and BS) does not have a standing before the court in a constitutional complaint procedure. The Constitutional Court reached this conclusion based on national law and therefore without having to consider, whether legal persons governed by public law can be holders of rights under Art. 47 of the Charter.

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    The key legal question was whether the Bank of Slovenia and the European Central Bank have locus standi before the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia in a constitutional complaint procedure, taking EU law (and the Charter) into consideration.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Constitutional Court decided to declare the constitutional complaints (as well as the constitutionality review initiative) inadmissible and therefore did not decide on the substance of the case. It found that EU law grants national authorities a procedural autonomy and therefore it did not have to decide whether ECB and BS could be holders of rights under Art. 47 od the Charter.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    8. The second applicant is filing a constitutional complaint against the decision of the District court in Ljubljana from the point 2. in the operative part of this decision. It is invoking rights from Art. 22. And 23. Of the Constitution, right from Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights [reference omitted – hereinafter ECHR] and a violation of the right from Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union [reference omitted – hereinafter the Charter]. It is proposing that the Constitutional court poses a preliminary question concerning the interpretation of Protocol (No 7) in connection with access to EU archives, and then in line with Art. 60. of the Constitutional Court Act [reference omitted] makes the substantive decision in the case. The second applicant is claiming, that the District court of Ljubljana, with orders No. IV Kpd 25686/2016 of 30. 6. 2016 and of 6. 7. 2016 (Search of BS premises) and order No. III Kpd 29285/2016 (search of computers and data storage devices, seized during the search of premises), enabled an interference with the inviolability of ECB archives. After the refusal of its demand under Art. 221. ZKP, it has no other legal remedies. The second applicant claims that it is a legal person governed by public law, protected by the rights, invoked in the constitutional complaint.

    […]

    11. The second applicant finds a violation of the rights from Art. 22. Of the Constitution,6. Of the ECHR and 47 of the Charter in the fact, that the contested decision is based on facts and evidence, it had not had the possibility to be heard about. ECB refers to an opinion of the district public prosecutor and an opinion of the Ministry of Justice (hereinafter: MJ), which were forwarded to to the District Court of Ljubljana, while ECH was not able to be heard about their substance. The District Court based an important part of its decision on te opinion by the MJ. The second applicant therefore did not enjoy the right to be heard regarding the complete procedural documentation in the judicial file, which had to affect th decision of the court. This is supposed to be against not only the settled case-law, but also the explanation of the right to a fair trial from paragraph one of Art. 6 of the ECHR in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: ECtHR). The second applicant claims, that the present case has to be judged from the viewpoint of Art. 47 of the Charter, guaranteeing the right to a fair trial, and that the Constitutional Court must not interfere with the human rights protection standards, determined by EU law. CJEU interpreted Art. 47 of the Charter in the direction of equality of arms of parties and duty to forward all written and oral presentations in the case to the parties.

    […]

    31. The decision of the Constitutional Court is also not affected by the second applicant’s claims of violation of the right to an effective legal remedy and impartiality under Art. 47 of the Charter. The question of entitlement to file a constitutional complaint as a special legal remedy before the Constitutional Court is a question of the Slovenian internal law (sixth indent od paragraph one, Art. 55.b of ZUstS), belonging within the frame of procedural autonomy of member states [reference omitted]. Member states are still bound by the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness [reference omitted] or the principle of effective judicial remedy [reference omitted] in such cases due to respect of EU law, however even considering these principles, EU law does not demand that member states should provide an unlimited access to judicial protection [reference omitted], and even less interfere with the organization of judicial protection [reference omitted] and don’t demand from the states a multi-level judicial protection [reference omitted]. This stands, a fortiori, for the interpretation of procedural conditions to introduce legal remedies before the national constitutional court. Without having to decide, whether (and if, in which cases) the ECB as an Union institution may, within the framework of EU law, be a holder of rights under Art. 47 of the Charter [reference omitted], the Constitutional Court had to decide by itself, whether in the present case here is a violation of a constitutional right of the applicant, which would entitle it to file a constitutional complaint under the national law. The Constitutional Court preformed this task, as following from the preceding paragraphs. It additionally notes that such decision in no case constitutes a treatment of ECB, less favorable than in cases of other similar national legal remedies, or the treatment of legal persons with similar characteristics, since it also came to the conclusion, that BS is also not a holder of the constitutional procedure guarantees in the circumstances of the concrete case.

    32. It follows from the stated above that BS and ECB are not, under the circumstances of the present case, holders of constitutional rights from Arts. 22., 23. And 25. Of the Constitution, and ECB also not of rights from Art. 6 of ECHR. As to whether the ECB can, within the field of application of EU law, be a holder of the right from Art. 47 of the Charter, the Constitutional Court did not have to take a position in the concrete case. This of course does not mean that the applicants do not enjoy procedural rights, granted to them under procedural laws in procedures before courts, where they enjoy the status of a party. It also does not mean, that regular courts do not have to take primary and secondary EU law into consideration and that in cases, where there is a question of interpretation of EU law in the dispute, they do not have to file a preliminary question to the CJEU. It only means that the applicants, if they are not holders of rights from Arts. 22., 23. And 25. of the Constitution, and ECB of the right from Art. 6 of the ECHR, do not have active legitimation for the filing of constitutional complaints.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    8. Druga pritožnica vlaga ustavno pritožbo zoper sklep Okrožnega sodišča v Ljubljani iz 2. točke obrazložitve tega sklepa. Uveljavlja kršitve pravic iz 22. in 23. člena Ustave, kršitev pravice iz 6. člena Konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin (Uradni list RS, št. 33/94, MP, št. 7/94 – v nadaljevanju EKČP) ter kršitev pravice iz 47. člena Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah (UL C 202, 7. 6. 2016 – v nadaljevanju Listina). Ustavnemu sodišču predlaga, naj SEU postavi vprašanje za predhodno odločanje glede razlage Protokola št. 7 v zvezi z vprašanjem dostopa do arhivov institucij EU, nato pa skladno s prvim odstavkom 60. člena Zakona o Ustavnem sodišču (Uradni list RS, št. 64/07 – uradno prečiščeno besedilo in 109/12 – v nadaljevanju ZUstS) samo odloči o spornih pravicah. Druga pritožnica trdi, da je Okrožno sodišče v Ljubljani z odredbama št. IV Kpd 25686/2016 z dne 30. 6. 2016 in z dne 6. 7. 2016 (hišna preiskava prostorov BS) in z odredbo št. III Kpd 29285/2016 z dne 22. 7. 2016 (preiskava računalnikov in nosilcev podatkov, zaseženih pri hišnih preiskavah) omogočilo posege v nedotakljivost arhivov ECB. Po zavrnitvi svoje zahteve po prvem odstavku 221. člena ZKP naj ne bi več imela nobenih pravnih sredstev v zadevi. Druga pritožnica zatrjuje, da je pravna oseba javnega prava, ki jo varujeta ustavni pravici, na kateri se sklicuje z ustavno pritožbo.

    […]

    11. Druga pritožnica vidi kršitev pravic iz 22. člena Ustave, 6. člena EKČP in 47. člena Listine v tem, da se izpodbijani sklep opira na dejstva in dokaze, o katerih se ni mogla izjaviti. ECB se v tem okviru sklicuje na mnenje okrožnega državnega tožilca in na mnenje Ministrstva za pravosodje (v nadaljevanju MP), ki naj bi bili posredovani Okrožnemu sodišču v Ljubljani, ECB pa naj se o njiju ne bi mogla izjaviti. Okrožno sodišče naj bi se pri sprejemanju izpodbijanega sklepa pomembno oprlo prav na mnenje MP. Druga pritožnica naj se tako ne bi mogla izjaviti o celotnem procesnem gradivu v sodnem spisu, ki je moglo vplivati na odločitev sodišča. To naj ne bi nasprotovalo le ustaljeni ustavnosodni presoji, pač pa tudi razlagi pravice do poštenega sojenja iz prvega odstavka 6. člena EKČP v praksi Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice (v nadaljevanju ESČP). Druga pritožnica zatrjuje, da je obravnavani primer treba presojati tudi z vidika 47. člena Listine, ki jamči pravico do poštenega sojenja, in da Ustavno sodišče ne sme poseči v standarde zaščite temeljnih pravic, kot jih določa pravo EU. SEU naj bi 47. člen Listine razlagalo v smeri enakosti orožij strank ter dolžnosti posredovanja strankam vseh pisnih in ustnih "predložitev" v zadevi.

    […]

    31. Prav tako na odločitev Ustavnega sodišča ne vplivajo navedbe druge pritožnice, da naj bi ji bila kršena pravica do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva in nepristranskega sodišča iz 47. člena Listine. Vprašanje upravičenosti za vložitev ustavne pritožbe kot posebnega pravnega sredstva pred Ustavnim sodiščem je vprašanje slovenskega notranjega prava (šesta alineja prvega odstavka 55.b člena ZUstS), ki spada v okvir procesne avtonomije držav članic.25 Države članice sicer v takih primerih pri zagotavljanju spoštovanja prava EU še vedno zavezujeta načeli enake obravnave in učinkovitosti26 oziroma načelo učinkovitega sodnega varstva,27 a tudi ob upoštevanju teh načel pravo EU od držav članic ne zahteva, naj v vseh primerih zagotavljajo neomejen dostop do sodnega varstva,28 še manj pa posega v organizacijo sodnega varstva29 in od držav članic ne zahteva večstopenjskega sodnega varstva.30 To a fortiori velja za razlago procesnih predpostavk za vložitev pravnih sredstev pred nacionalnim ustavnim sodiščem. Ne da bi bilo treba odločiti, ali (in če, v katerih primerih) je ECB kot institucija Unije v okviru prava EU lahko nosilka pravic iz 47. člena Listine,31 je moralo tako Ustavno sodišče sámo presoditi, ali gre v obravnavani zadevi za očitano kršitev ustavne pravice pritožnice, ki lahko po notranjem pravnem redu utemelji njeno upravičenje za vložitev ustavne pritožbe. Ustavno sodišče je to presojo opravilo, kot izhaja iz predhodnih točk obrazložitve. Ob tem še pripominja, da taka odločitev v nobenem primeru ne pomeni obravnave ECB, ki bi bila manj ugodna od obravnave podobnih nacionalnih pravnih sredstev oziroma od obravnave pravnih oseb s podobnimi značilnostmi, saj je tudi glede BS sprejelo stališče, da v okoliščinah konkretnega primera ni nosilka ustavnih procesnih jamstev.

    32. Iz navedenega izhaja, da BS in ECB v okoliščinah konkretnega primera nista nosilki ustavnih pravic iz 22., 23. in 25. člena Ustave, ECB pa tudi ni nosilka pravic iz 6. člena EKČP. O tem, ali je ECB na področju uporabe prava EU lahko nosilka pravice iz 47. člena Listine, se Ustavnemu sodišču v konkretnem primeru ni treba opredeliti. To seveda ne pomeni, da pritožnicama v postopkih pred sodišči, v katerih imata položaj stranke, ne gredo procesne pravice, ki jih strankam postopka dajejo procesni zakoni. Navedeno tudi ne pomeni, da rednim sodiščem ni treba upoštevati primarnega in sekundarnega prava EU ter da v primerih, ko se v sporu zastavi vprašanje razlage prava EU, niso dolžna predložiti vprašanja za predhodno odločanje SEU. Pomeni le, da pritožnici, če nista nosilki ustavnih pravic iz 22., 23. in 25. člena Ustave, ECB pa tudi, če ni nosilka pravice iz 6. člena EKČP, nimata aktivne legitimacije za vložitev ustavnih pritožb.