U-I-94/94 23 May 1994 RESOLUTION In a procedure to assess constitutionality and legality at a session on 23 May 1994 the Constitutional Court passed the following resolution: 1. a) The initiatives of the council of Trata LC, the council and assembly of Vitanje LC, the chairman of the council of Ljubljana-Šentvid LC, the chairman of the council of Jesenice na Dolenjskem LC, the chairmen of the councils of Franc Ravbar LC, Črnuče-Gmajna LC, Rezke Dragar LC and Nadgorica- Ježa LC, Ivan Kokalj of Škofja Loka, the inhabitants of Placar settlement, the council of Šalovci LC, the initiative committee of Globoka village and Janko Rožman of Globoka, the council of Gradac LC, Fran Pliberšek of Zgornje Grušovje and Anton Juhart of Pobrež to start the procedure for the assessment of the individual provisions of the Decree on Defining Referendum Areas for the Founding of Municipalities (Official Gazette RS, No. 22/94) are adopted. 1. b) The initiative by the chairman of the council of Ljubljana-Šentvid LC to begin the procedure for the assessment of the constitutionality and legality of the Decree on Defining Referendum Areas for the Founding of Municipalities is rejected. 1. c) The initiative by the chairman of the assembly of Ljubljana-Šiška municipality, addressed as a request to assess the constitutionality and legality of the Decree on Defining Referendum Areas for the Founding of Municipalities, is rejected. 2. The provisions of the Decree in the following points: - point 272 (Škofja Loka): for the area of Frankovo Naselje, Hafnerjevo Naselje, and Ljubljanska and Kidričeva streets, - point 265 (Zreče): for the area of Skomarje settlement from house number 53 onwards, - point 12 (Velika Dolina): for the area of Jesenice na Dolenjskem LC, - point 127 (Razkrižje): for the area of Globoka settlements, - point 21 (Črnomelj): for the area of Vranoviči settlement, - point 130 (Metlika): for the area of Gradac, Klošter and Okljuka settlements, and - point 142 (Gornji Petrovci): for the area of Šalovci LC, in connection with the provision of chapter II do not conflict with the Constitution and the law, provided that the provision of chapter II is understood such that the voting in these referendum areas is carried out in such manner as will enable the establishment of the results for the parts of the referendum areas mentioned above. 3. The provisions of the Decree in the following points: - point 123 (Ljubljana): for the area of Ljubljana-Šentvid LC, Gunclje-Male Vižmarje LC, Stanežiče-Medno LC and Vižmarje-Brod LC and the area of Franc Ravbar LC, Črnuče-Gmajna LC, Rezke Dragar LC and Nadgorica-Ježa LC, - point 203 (Destrnik): for the area of Placar settlement from house no. 33 to no. 72, - point 262 (Tepanje): for the area of Pobrež and Zgornje Grušovje settlements, and - point 265 (Zreče): for the Rogla area, do not conflict with the Constitution and the law. 4. When implementing this resolution the following announcement must be posted in all areas listed under point 2 of this disposition: "On the basis of Constitutional Court resolution No. U-I-94/94 of 23 May 1994, the results of the referendum voting in the area of ...... (name of area) will be established separately so as to enable the National Assembly to take account of them when defining new municipalities insofar as this will be possible with regard to the constitutional and legal provisions on local self-government and the defining of new municipalities. - Constitutional Court." 5. The Republic 2 Electoral Commission and other competent electoral commissions shall be responsible for the implementation of this resolution. Reasons: A 1. This resolution adjudicates on the following requests: - the initiative by the council of Trata LC to assess the constitutionality and legality of point 276 of the Decree - of 9 May 1994 (U-I-94/94), - the request by the council and assembly of Vitanje LC for assessment of the constitutionality and legality of point 265 of the Decree - of 9 May 1994 (U-I-96/94), - the request by the chairman of the council of Ljubljana-Šentvid LC for assessment of the constitutionality and legality of point 123 of the Decree - of 9 May 1994 (U-I-97/94), - the initiative by the chairman of the council of Jesenice na Dolenjskem LC to assess the constitutionality and legality of point 12 of the decree - of 17 May 1994 (U-I-107/94), - the initiative by the chairman of Franc Ravbar, Črnuče-Gmajna, Rezke Dragar and Nadgorica-Ježa LCs to assess the constitutionality and legality of point 123 of the Decree - of 13 May 1994 (U-I- 108/94), - the initiative by Ivan Kokalj of Škofja Loka to assess the constitutionality and legality of points 276 and 272 of the Decree - of 17 May 1994 (U-I-109/94), - the initiative by Alojz Anežl, the authorised representative of the inhabitants of Placar settlement, to assess the constitutionally and legality of point 203 of the Decree - of 16 May 1994 (U-I-110/94), - the request by the council of Šalovci LC for assessment of the constitutionality and legality of point 142 of the Decree - of 18 May 1994 (U-I-111/94), - the initiative by the initiative committee of Globoka village and Janko Rožman of Globoka to start the procedure for the assessment of the constitutionality and legality of point 127 of the Decree - of 20 May 1994 (U-I-112/94), - the petition (constitutional dispute) by the council of Gradac LC against points 21 and 130 of the Decree - of 21 May 1994 (U-I-113/94), - the request by the chairman of the assembly of the municipality of Ljubljana-Šiška for assessment of the constitutionality and legality of point 123 of the Decree - of 20 May 1994 (U-I-114/94), and - the complaint by Anton Juhart of Pobrež and Franc Pliberšek of Zgornje Grušovje against point 262 of the Decree - of 23 May 1994 (U-I-115/94). For reasons of joint consideration and adjudication the cases were combined under number U-I-94/94. 2. The first of the said applications were sent to the National Assembly for reply and the Government Office for Local Self-Government Reform for an opinion, while the last three, for reasons of urgency, were not. By the time of adjudication on the cases the Constitutional Court had received an opinion from the Office on the initiative by the council of Trata LC and the initiative by the council of Vitanje LC. B-I 1. In respect of their content, the Constitutional Court considered all the said applications carrying various titles to be initiatives. According to Article 23, first paragraph, seventh indent, of the Law on the Constitutional Court (Official Gazette RS, No. 15/94), only the representative bodies of the new local communities founded in accordance with the new Constitution will be able to lodge a request, which current communities are not as yet. Nevertheless, they and their representatives must certainly be 3 recognised as having a legal interest in lodging an initiative since every inhabitant of the disputed area has such legal interest. 2. The request by the chairman of the assembly of the municipality of Ljubljana-Šiška was rejected by the Constitutional Court in accordance with Article 25 of the Law on the Constitutional Court because the chairman of an assembly does not have the legitimate right to make such a request in the sense of Article 23 of the Law on the Constitutional Court without a special decision by the municipal assembly. B-II The Constitutional Court based its decisions on the findings and opinions given under point B-II in the reasons explaining case No. U-I-85/94 of 20 May 1994. Therefore that part of the reasons is not repeated here since the said resolution will be published in the Official Gazette of the RS - a copy of the resolution will be sent to the parties in the procedure as a supplement to this resolution. B-III 1. The council of Trata LC claimed that point 276 of the Decree, contrary to the citizens' assembly proposal, removed Frankovo Naselje and Hafnerjevo Naselje and Ljubljanska and Kidričeva streets from the referendum area Trata-Sorško Polje at the proposal of the chairman of the municipal assembly and included them in referendum area 272 (Škofja Loka), and therefore the initiator actually contested point 272 of the Decree. The initiator states that the contested area belongs to Trata LC and that its exclusion from the referendum area would therefore conflict with Articles 2 and 4 of the LRFM. For the same reasons the initiator Ivan Kokalj contested the said point of the Decree because it did not place Hafnerjevo Naselje in the referendum area for the founding of Trata-Sorško Polje municipality. Because of the urgent nature of the case the Constitutional Court adjudicated before receiving a reply from the NA. Therefore it was not explained whether Frankovo Naselje and Hafnerjevo Naselje and Ljubljanska and Kidričeva streets actually do enjoy the status of a settlement, as claimed in the initiative, and what importance the said decision by the municipal assembly to include Frankovo Naselje in Škofja Loka (whereas Hafnerjevo Naselje was left out) has for the initiative; the Constitutional Court nevertheless decided in a manner similar to that in the cases mentioned earlier. If it was established on the basis of such referendum results that the voters in the disputed area rejected the integration of the area with the municipality of Škofja Loka, it would be necessary to establish unequivocally the actual state of the above-mentioned questions at that time and take this into account when adopting the final legal definition of the areas of the Škofja Loka and Trata-Sorško Polje municipalities.