U-I-85/94 20 May 1994

RESOLUTION

In a procedure for the assessment of constitutionality and legality on 20 May 1994, the Constitutional Court

passed the following resolution:

1. The initiative by the Poljanska Dolina ob Kolpi LC, the council of Draga LC, the chairman of the council of Iška Vas LC, the chairmen of Litija (left bank) and Litija (right bank) LC councils, the chairmen of Bučka LC council, "Alija Kardoša" LC Murska Sobota, Goriška Knjižnica Franceta Bevka of Nova Gorica, the citizens' assembly of Nova Gorica municipality and the chairman of Apače LC Council to begin proceedings for the assessment of individual provisions of the Decree on Defining Referendum Areas for the Founding of Municipalities and the Decree on the Announcement of the Referendum for the Founding of Municipalities (Official Gazette RS, No. 22/94) is accepted.

2. The provisions of the Decree on Defining Referendum Areas for the Founding of Municipalities in Chapter I - namely:

- point 22 (Stari Trg ob Kolpi): for the territory of Poljanska Dolina ob Kolpi LC,

- point 236 (Ribnica): for the territory of Draga LC, - point 115 (Ig): for the territory of Iška Vas LC, - point 179 (Škocjan): for the territory of Bučka 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 understand such that in the listed referendum areas the voting is carried out in such manner as will enable the establishment of the results of the voting for an individual part of the referendum area.

3. The following contested points of the Decree are not contrary to the Constitution and the law: point 37 (Apače), point 105 (Litija), point 150 (Murska Sobota), point 164 (Nova Gorica), point 166 (Solkan), point 167 (Kromberk) and point 168 (Šempeter pri Gorici).

4. The part of point IV of the Decree on Announcing the Referendum for the Founding of Municipalities, which stipulates the wording of the referendum question for referendum area 108 (Gabrovka), does not conflict with the Constitution and the law.

5. When carrying out this resolution the following notice must be posted at every polling station listed in point 2 of this disposition:

"On the basis of Constitutional Court resolution No. U-I-85/94 of 20 May 1994, in the area of ...... (name of the area), the referendum results will be established separately, so that the National Assembly will be able to take account of them when forming new municipalities as far as possible with regard to the provisions on local self-government and the formation of new municipalities. - Constitutional Court."

The notice must be posted in the voting booths or any other appropriate voting place, and may also be posted in other visible places at the polling station.

6. The Republic Electoral Commission and other competent electoral commissions must ensure that this resolution is carried out.

Reasons:

A

1. Between 4 and 19 May 1994 the Constitutional Court received, in addition to the two requests for assessment of the constitutionality and legality of point 73 of the Decree on Defining Referendum 2

Areas for the Founding of Municipalities (Koper referendum area), on which it adjudicated with case No. U-I-90/94 of 20 May 1994, another 17 initiatives or differently labelled requests contesting other provisions of this Decree (hereinafter: "the Decree") and in one case also one of the provisions of the Decree on the Announcement of the Referendum for the Founding of Municipalities. At a session on 20 May 1994 nine of these requests were adjudicated on with this resolution; the decisions on others were deferred because by that date the actual situation and legal questions important for the decisions had not yet been adequately clarified.

2. The following requests were adjudicated on with this resolution: - the proposal by the council of Poljanska Dolina ob Kolpi LC to annul point 22 of the Decree - of 3 May 1994 (U-I-85/94), - the constitutional complaint by the council of Draga LC against point 236 of the decree - of 5 May 1994 (U-I-88/94), - the complaint by the chairman of the council of Iška Vas LC against point 115 of the Decree - of 29 April 1994 (U-I-87/94), - the request by the chairman of the council of Bučka LC to partially annul point 19 of the Decree - of 10 May 1994 (U-I-98/94), - the lawsuit/constitutional dispute by the chairman of the council of Apače LC on the constitutionality of point 37 of the Decree - of 16 May 1994 (U-I-106/94),

- the initiative by the chairmen of Litija (left bank) and Litija (right bank) LC to begin the procedure to assess the constitutionality and legality of point 105 of the Decree and the provisions on the wording of the referendum question for referendum area 108 (Gabrovka) in Chapter IV of the Decree on the Announcement of the Referendum for the Founding of Municipalities - of 5 May 1994 (U-I-93/94).

- the initiative by "Alija Kardoša" Murska Sobota LC to assess the constitutionality and legality of the 105th point of the Decree - of 12 May 1994 (U-I-101/94),

- the initiative by Goriška Knjižnica Franceta Bevka, Nova Gorica, to assess the constitutionality and legality of points 164, 166, 167 and 168 of the Decree - of 12 May 1994 (U-I-102/94) and - the initiative by the citizens' group from Nova Gorica municipality to assess the constitutionality and legality of points 164, 166, 167 and 168 of the Decree - of 12 May 1994 (U-I-103/94).

For the purpose of joint consideration all the cases were combined under number U-I-85/94.

3. The requests were sent to the National Assembly for a reply, and explanations in connection with them were requested from the Government Service for Local Self-Government Reform. At the time of the session at which the resolution was adopted, the Constitutional Court had received replies in cases Nos. U-I-85, 87, 88 and 90/94, and explanations or opinions on the same cases from the Government Service for Local Self- Government Reform, as well as for U-I-101, 102 and 103/94.

In accordance with Article 300, second paragraph, of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly, the reply was given by the Secretariat for Legislation and Legal Affairs on the basis of the opinions and standpoints of the NA Commission on Local Self-Government. The reply by the NA first lists the basic positions that were taken into account by the NA when adopting the Decree and which should also be considered when assessing the constitutionality and legality of the contested provisions of the Decree: - proposals by inhabitants on the definition of referendum areas are not binding upon the National Assembly when making final decisions. According to Article 8, first paragraph, of the Law on the Referendum for the Founding of Municipalities ("the LRFM"), the NA, after receiving the proposals, took into account the areas and links between settlements as well as current ethnically mixed areas, which logically means that the proposals are, as a rule, corrected. This also follows from the possibility of deciding on complaints submitted under Article 8, second paragraph, of the LRFM,

- so the NA may stipulate its own rules and criteria for dealing with or taking into account proposals and objections. The proposals by inhabitants serve as essential foundations in decision-making, which is also apparent from the fact that deciding on these proposals runs in two stages, by publishing the first decision of the NA in the public media, etc. The NA does not only follow the proposals and objections when it has very well-founded reasons (not meeting the conditions for a municipality, territorial integrity or links between settlements, division of settlements and ethnically mixed areas), and also implements a certain general policy on the transformation of municipalities, which lies within its political obligation as the legislator, 3

- the proposals received are not necessarily a reflection of the majority popular will, which will be properly expressed only at the referendum. The defining of the referendum areas therefore does not prejudge the decisions on the municipal areas, which will be adopted only after the law is passed. In the preparations for this law not only will the will of an individual referendum area be taken into account but also that of its parts: by polling stations, settlements or local communities. Such manner of establishing of results is also planned for the areas disputed in these proceedings before the Constitutional Court (Draga, Iška Vas, Poljanska Dolina ob Kolpi and Koper local communities),

- the contested decree as the enabling act for the LRFM in no way conflicts with the law, neither in terms of its contents nor formally; neither does it conflict with the Law on Local Self-Government or the constitutional provisions on local self-government. The competent central working body therefore did not suggest any changes to the Decree in the listed cases.

On the basis of these principles the reply also listed more detailed standpoints in the discussion of specific contested cases.

B-1

In terms of their contents, the Constitutional Court considered the applications that were labelled differently to be initiatives. The requests from Article 23, paragraph one, indent 7, of the Law on the Constitutional Court (Official Gazette RS, No. 15/94) may be lodged only by representative bodies of the new local communities, founded in accordance with the Constitution, which current local municipalities are not. Their legal interest in lodging initiatives or that of their representatives should be recognised since such legal interest belongs to every inhabitant of a disputed area.

B-II

The first requirement when assessing the constitutionality and legality of a contested decree is to establish which constitutional and legal provisions the Decree may conflict with. The Constitutional Court agreed with the plaintiffs that the areas defined by the Decree do not signify final decisions on the areas of new municipalities, which will be achieved with the law adopted on the basis of the referendum results. In view of this, the Decree does not yet mean a decision that could not be changed on the basis of the will expressed at the referendum. Because the adopted referendum decision is not absolutely binding upon the legislator when defining the area of a municipality, there was no need to assess the accordance of the Decree with those constitutional and legal provisions that introduced the criteria for forming municipalities; for instance Article 139, second paragraph, of the Constitution (that a municipality shall comprise the area of one or a number of settlements linked by the joint needs and interests of the inhabitants) or Article 13 of the Law on Local Self-Government (Official Gazette RS, No. 72/93, - "the LLSG"), which determined 11 functions, most of which the municipality must be able to fulfil. Since the contested decree is only an enabling act to the LRFM (Official Gazette RS, No. 5/94), i.e. an act intended to ensure the execution of these referendums, the Constitutional Court focused in assessing constitutionality and legality in these cases on judging their conformity with Article 139, paragraph three, according to which "the will of the people in a certain area" must be established with a referendum, with the first four paragraphs of Article 14 of the LLSG, which refer to these referendums, and with the provisions of the LRFM as the law regulating in full these referendums, and particularly Article 8. The Constitutions binds the legislator in Article 139, paragraph three, only in the sense that before the founding of a new municipality it must carry out a referendum to "establish the will of the people in a certain area", without defining the term "area" and without explicitly binding the legislator to this will. In accordance with the spirit of this constitutional provision, the legislator undertook with Article 14 of the LLSG to define (by law) the areas of municipalities "in accordance with the will expressed ..... at the referendum" - when, of course, this will is not contrary to the letter and spirit of the constitutional provisions on local self-government, since the legislator must above all else abide by the Constitution.

In connection with this we have to consider that in the process of forming the first municipalities in accordance with the current Constitution, the legislator is bound by its "self-imposed restriction" in Article 14, but only insofar as an individual contested case of defining a referendum area (providing it 4 is confirmed at a referendum) can pass the test of the assessment of constitutionality and legality as a final decision on the founding of a new municipality.

When the Constitutional Court established that the legislator, even when defining referendum areas for the founding of municipalities, and more so when later adopting the Law on Defining the Boundaries of Municipalities, was bound to the concept of a municipality, a question arises as to the content of the constitutional concept of a municipality. The Constitutional Court refers here to the definitions from its case No. U-I-90/94 of 20 May 1994. According to the Constitution, the basic local community is a municipality, whose constitutional concept is conditioned by the joint needs and interests of the inhabitants of one or a number of settlements independently participating in the administration of matters of a local nature, which is to say independently from the state. A municipality is thus a living community of people inhabiting the area of one or a number of interlinked settlements. It is characterised by territorial links which are the basis for the formation of a network of personal and neighbourly relations and the consciousness of belonging to a municipality as a basic territorial community. If settlements are not connected by the joint needs and interests of the inhabitants in a way that would encompass the area of a municipality as the basic local self-governing community, but are nevertheless joined in a referendum area for the defining of the area of a municipality, we cannot talk about the area of a municipality defined in accordance with the law and the Constitution. This essence of the constitutional concept of a municipality as the basic local self-governing community will have to be taken into account by the NA, particularly when adopting the Law on Defining the Boundaries of Municipalities.

On the other hand, the constitutional concept of a municipality assumes that a future municipality will, with regard to the number of inhabitants it has and other conditions, be capable of independently administering local affairs. If this element of the constitutional concept of a municipality was not manifested when adopting the Decree on Defining Referendum Areas for the Founding of Municipalities, then it will be taken into account by the NA just like the previously described criteria when defining the areas of municipalities.

When defining the areas of municipalities, the NA will also be able to consider the provisions of Article 14, paragraphs three and four, of the LLSG, i.e. the provisions which procedurally solve conflicting referendum decisions. In accordance with paragraph three, the NA will exceptionally be able to adopt corrections to boundaries whenever it establishes that referendum decisions contradict each other, and in accordance with paragraph four, it will, as a rule, when defining the area of a municipality, take into account the boundaries of the land-register municipalities and local communities so as to avoid municipal boundaries cutting a land-register municipality or local community boundaries, and exceptionally it may decide to adopt such measures.

In connection with the provisions of the LRFM as an "enabling" law, it was necessary when solving the contested cases in these resolutions to answer the question as to whether individual provisions of the contested Decree should be considered illegal if the procedure prescribed in this law was not followed. For instance, if the provision of Article 6, paragraph five, was infringed (despite conflicting proposals the municipal chairman did not call a renewed citizens' assembly to adapt the proposals) or the provisions of Article 8, second paragraph, (the NA repeats the decision-making and changes the original decisions concerning an area where there was no complaint lodged against the original decision, which happened in the case of Iška Vas local community). An infringement in the procedure of adopting the regulation can only be cause for its annulment in the case where serious infringements occurred which could have a serious impact on the content of the adopted decision. As the adopted decision was not final and can be corrected before the end of the procedure to found new municipalities, the infringements established during the procedure will be an element that needs to be taken into account during any assessment of the constitutionality and legality of such final decision.

To ensure better and more reliable separate establishing of the referendum results in disputed areas within an individual referendum area than is achieved merely with a decision by the competent National Assembly commission, which the Constitutional Court learned of only from the replies from the NA in these proceedings, the Constitutional Court decided that in cases it deemed necessary (where it would be necessary in accordance with the criteria of constitutional law because of deficiencies in the current procedure for founding new municipalities to provide the possibility for 5 separate expression of the will of the referendum in disputed areas), the contested provisions of the Decree will be in accordance with the Constitution and the law only if the contested provisions are, in connection with point II of the Decree and taking account of the previously cited decisions by the competent NA commission, understood such that provision is made for the separate establishing of the referendum results.

Connected with this is point 5 of the disposition of the resolution with which the Constitutional Court adjudicated that for disputed areas where the referendum results are established separately, the voters must be informed of this by means of a special announcement. This point of the disposition was adopted by the Constitutional Court on the basis of Article 40, second paragraph, first indent, of the Law on the Constitutional Court, according to which the Constitutional Court shall determine, when necessary, the manner of execution of its decree.

B-III

1. The Council of Poljanska Dolina ob Kolpi LC contested point 22 of the Decree, according to which the area of the LC is included in the referendum area of Stari Trg ob Kolpi, even though in the original text of the decree, published in the press, this area was included in the referendum area Kočevje, in accordance with the proposal of the citizens' assembly. The changes in the final text of the Decree contested by the initiator took place on the basis of the objections by those in favour of a different arrangement, which was then confirmed by the NA.

In its reply the NA stated that the procedure was carried out in accordance with the Constitution and the law, but that the voting will be carried out in a manner that will enable the referendum results to be established separately for the disputed area.

Irrespective of whether mistakes were made in the procedure (to what degree the NA took into account the objections of those subjects who, in accordance with Article 8 of the LRFM, were not entitled, which could not be established completely because of the speed of the procedure), a solution was nevertheless found whereby the majority will of the inhabitants in the disputed area had to be established for a final solution. Therefore the Constitutional Court decided that the contested provision of the Decree is in accordance with the Constitution and the law only if understood and explained in such manner as will enable the separate establishment of the referendum results in a disputed area (the essence of this element of the reasoning applies to all subsequent points).

2. The Council of Draga LC contested point 236 of the Decree, which included the territory of this LC in Ribnica referendum area, even though the citizens' assembly proposed joining with the Kočevje referendum area. This proposal was not taken into account even in the original text of the Decree, which is why a complaint was lodged (with a repeated request to join Kočevje or, alternatively, to form their own municipality), which was rejected.

In its reply the NA stated that the procedure was in accordance with the Constitution and the law and that the complaint could not be accepted; joining the Kočevje referendum area was not possible due to the territorial disconnection (in between lies the independent referendum area of Kočevska Reka), while the disputed area fails to meet the conditions for the founding of a new municipality. However, the voting in the area of Draga LC will be carried out in such manner as enables the separate establishment of the results of the voting. The Constitutional Court agrees with the assertion made in reply by the NA, but also agrees with the initiator's assertion that the problems of territorial separation would be removed if Kočevska Reka referendum area were not formed as an independent municipality. This is why it took the decision as stated in the disposition.

3. Iška Vas LC contested point 115 of the Decree, according to which the area of that LC was included in Ig referendum area, even though the original text of the Decree planned this area as an independent referendum area under number 117.

The NA stated in its reply that this area does not meet the conditions to be an independent municipality and that the procedure was in accordance with the Constitution and the law, but the 6 voting in the disputed area will nevertheless be carried out in such manner as will enable the establishing of the results for this area separately.

The Constitutional Court found that the procedure was not in accordance with the provision of Article 8, second paragraph, of the LRFM, which should be understood such that the NA may change originally defined referendum areas only on the basis of lawfully submitted objections. In this case there were no objections against the original decision by the NA; the NA adopted the original decision (on an independent Iška Vas reference area) - as in a few similar cases - with a note that the Government Office for Local Self-Government Reform will carry out a subsequent analysis on whether the area meets the conditions for the founding of a municipality in accordance with Article 13 of the LLSG. The NA adopted the new decision on the basis of the negative opinion by the Office and the rejection of a contrary opinion by the Iška Vas LC. The Constitutional Court decided that in this case, too, the contested provision of the Decree is in accordance with the Constitution and the law only if understood and explained in such manner as enables the separate establishment of the referendum results in the disputed area. With regard to the views expressed in the reply by the NA, the Constitutional Court agrees that the final decision on the founding of municipalities will be made only with a special law. In the event that Iška Vas LC rejects integration in the municipality of Ig at the referendum, the founding of an independent municipality of Iška Vas will be possible only if the NA establishes that the constitutional and legal conditions are met.

4. The council of Bučka LC contested point 179 of the Decree, because it included the entire area of the LC in the Škocjan referendum area, even though the inhabitants three times decided in favour of joining Sevnica referendum area, albeit only by a narrow majority. A minority in all these votes was in favour of joining Škocjan referendum area (currently Novo Mesto municipality). Irrespective of this, the original text of the Decree divided the area of Bučka LC between the referendum areas of Sevnica and Raka (currently in the municipality of Krško) and not Sevnica and Škocjan referendum areas. Both Bučka LC and Sevnica municipality lodged a complaint against this decision; both were in favour of including the entire area of Bučka LC in the referendum area of Sevnica. The initiator has no knowledge as to why the NA included the entire disputed area (part of the Raka referendum area and part of the Sevnica referendum area) in the Škocjan referendum area.

Because of the urgent nature of the case the Constitutional Court adopted its decision before receiving a reply from the NA.

Since an important constitutional and legal basis in defining the territory of new municipalities is taking into account the will of the affected population, the Constitutional Court decided that in this case the contested provision of the Decree is in accordance with the Constitution and the law only under the same interpretation as in the cases described above.

B-IV

1. Apače LC contested the provision of point 37 of the Decree which determined the area of this LC and Stogovci LC as an independent referendum area, and on the basis of 15 votes at the citizens' assembly in Apače, while the citizens' assembly in Stogovci LC voted against (in favour of joining Gornja Radgona referendum area), and the citizens' assembly of the settlement of Lutverci in Apače LC was also against; around 700 people signed a petition to join the referendum area of Gornja Radgona.

Due to the urgent nature of the case the Constitutional Court made its decision before receiving a reply from the NA.

The will of the population within the independent referendum area of Apače will be established with far greater reliability at the referendum than by the citizens' assemblies or petitions. The NA will have to decide on the basis of these decisions, and by taking into account the provisions of the Constitution, whether to form an independent municipality or merge the area with Gornja Radgona municipality.

In this regard the Constitutional Court found that the contested provision does not conflict with the Constitution and the law. 7

2. Litija (left bank) and Litija (right bank) LC contested point 105 of the Decree, which included in their referendum area settlements from Polšnik and Velika Štanga LC. The inhabitants of these settlements do wish to join the municipality of Litija, but according to the assertions made in the initiative the inhabitants of other parts of this referendum area opted for a municipality which would not include these settlements. They state that Polšnik LC is closer to Zagorje than to Litija, with which it does not even have a direct road link.

Due to the urgent nature of the case the Constitutional Court made its decision before receiving a reply from the NA.

From the information provided in the initiative itself it is clear that the initiator did not use the possibility of a complaint, given by Article 8 of the LRFM, against the proposal to form the municipality of Litija without the disputed areas of Polšnik and Velika Štanga LCs with regard to settlements from Polšnik LC which were included in the Litija referendum area even in the original text. From the assertions in the initiative and the fact that in the original text the settlements from Velika Štanga were included in Šmartno referendum area, it can be concluded that the changes to the final text of the Decree took place on the basis of their complaint. In this context it cannot be claimed that the provisions of point 105 of the Decree were not adopted in accordance with the legally prescribed procedure, in which those in favour of a different solution were given the possibility to lodge a complaint but did not do so. Particularly in connection with a smaller area bordering on two or several municipalities, which itself does not meet the conditions for the forming of a new municipality and has to join one of these municipalities in any case, it is necessary to take account of the will of the populations in such an area. In this case the objection to such solution did not come from a border area such as this but from the central area of the planned new municipality, and the Constitutional Court itself did not find other reasons why the provision of the Decree on such a referendum area should be considered contrary to the Constitution and the law.

3. "Alija Kardoša" Murska Sobota LC contested point 105 of the Decree, which included in the referendum area of Murska Sobota the settlements of Brezovci, Lemerje and Predanovci - contrary to the will expressed at the citizens' assemblies in the rest of this referendum area; the citizens wanted to form a municipality of Murska Sobota without these three settlements. According to the assertions in the initiative, the authorised representatives of these assemblies lodged a complaint against such provision in the original text on time, but it was not taken into account by the NA. The initiative states that the contested arrangement infringes the constitutional and legal provisions on links between settlements in the new municipalities because, in the opinion of the initiator, these settlements and their interests are in no way whatsoever linked to the interests of other inhabitants of the area, and such arrangement could threaten the interests of the municipality, which is to apply for the status of an urban municipality.

Due to the urgent nature of the case the Constitutional Court made its decision before receiving a reply from the NA.

Whenever there is a question of joining smaller areas which do not fulfil the conditions to become an independent municipality with one of the neighbouring areas, it cannot be expected that consistent respect of the will of the inhabitants of the disputed area and the "joined" area will be achieved, since then the area could not be joined anywhere. This is why in such cases the NA has to be given a greater possibility for independent decision-making, albeit still tied to the Constitution.

4. Goriška Knjižnica Franceta Bevka of Nova Gorica and a group of citizens from Nova Gorica municipality contested points 164, 166, 167 and 168 of the Decree, which envisaged in an area the initiators considered to be a unified urban area the founding of four independent referendum areas for new municipalities: Nova Gorica, Solkan, Kromberk and Šempeter. Goriška Knjižnica stated that all four areas form a unified urban area, interwoven by town-planning, public utility and other facilities, which includes over 60 regional institutions, and that the contested provisions of the Decree conflict with Article 16 of the LLSG and Article 5, point 176, of the LRFM and also conflict with Article 13 of the LSS, since the Kromberk area does not meet the conditions for the founding of a municipality. The group of citizens stated in addition to these arguments that the local communities of Solkan, Nova 8

Gorica, Kromberk, Rožna Dolina, Šempeter and Vrtojba have been a unified urban area for decades, which can be confirmed by all municipal town-planning documents from 1967 onwards, the publications of the Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, the Office for Joint Public Utilities of all these parts, etc. They also stated that Article 8 of the 1978 municipal statute explicitly stipulates that the town shall comprise the settlements of Nova Gorica, Kromberk, Rožna Dolina, Solkan, Stara Gora, Šempeter, Vrtojba and Loka, and lists the harmful effects such an arrangement would lead to in their opinion, including the fact that none of the four new municipalities would be able to apply for the status of an urban municipality, because none of them is the centre of its area by itself as stipulated by Article 16 of the LLSG. Due to the urgent nature of the case the Constitutional Court made its decision before receiving a reply from the NA.

The Constitutional Court, which has been studying the professional material which will serve as the basis in the consultations on urban municipalities (Institute of Geography: Criteria on Defining Towns in Slovenia, Ljubljana 1993, Dr Igor Vrišer: Definition of Towns and Urban Municipalities in the Republic of Slovenia, 18 April 1994), established that Solkan, Kromberk and Šempeter are undoubtedly independent settlements whose inhabitants, in accordance with the valid constitutional and legal provisions, indisputably have the right to propose the founding of their own municipality. It is clear from the material mentioned above that the town of Nova Gorica, even without Solkan, Kromberk and Šempeter, fits the concept of a town or urban municipality in accordance with professional criteria. This, of course, does not also mean that after the adoption of a possible special law on urban municipalities or criteria determined in any other way on the forming of urban municipalities that will enable the inclusion of suburban settlements into such municipalities, it would not be possible for such a suburban settlement to join the municipality of Nova Gorica. Constitutional Court decisions cannot replace the legislator in the search for and decisions on the most effective means for introducing local self-government. It can make assessments in cases where the procedure has already begun exclusively from the point of view of the conformity of the decisions with the Constitution and the law, and not from the point of view of their reasonableness or suitability.

For these reasons, which in principle apply to all other cases discussed in this resolution, and for the reasons listed separately for each case, the Constitutional Court established that the provisions of the contested Decree in this case are not contrary to the Constitution and the law.

B-V

Litija (left bank) and Litija (right bank) LC, in addition to point 105 of the Decree on Defining Referendum Areas for the Founding of Municipalities, which has been adjudicated on under point 3 of this resolution, also contested the Decree on Announcing the Referendum for the Founding of Municipalities and that part of Chapter IV which stipulated that for the 108th referendum area (for the founding of the municipality of Gabrovka) the wording of the referendum question should be as follows:

"Are you in favour of founding a municipality:

1. in our referendum area of Gabrovka,

2 in the area which comprises our referendum area of Gabrovka and the referendum area for the founding of the municipality of Litija." The initiators stated that this put Litija in an unequal position since they would not have any possibility of influencing the results of the voting.

In this case, too, the Constitutional Court decided that the contested provision of the Decree on Announcing the Referendum for the Founding of Municipalities is not contrary to the Constitution and the law because it was based on the reasons listed under point B-IV for Apače local community.

C

The Constitutional Court passed this Resolution on the basis of Article 21, first paragraph, and Article 25, fourth paragraph, of the Law on the Constitutional Court (Official Gazette RS, No. 15/94) at a session composed as follows: chairman Dr Tone Jerovšek and judges Dr Peter Jambrek, Matevž 9

Krivic M.Law, Janez Snoj M.Law, Dr Janez Šinkovec, Dr Lovro Šturm, Franc Testen, Dr Lojze Ude and Dr Boštjan M Zupančič. The resolution was adopted unanimously. A confirmative separate opinion was announced by judge Matevž Krivic M.Law.

Chairman: Dr Tone Jerovšek