Statistical data: 1 May 1996 - 31 August 1996

• New cases: 66
• Cases resolved: 67
- Invalidated: 2
- Repealed: 24
- Rejected: 14
- Inadmissible: 13
• Structure of the cases:
- Laws:22
- Other regulations approved by State authorities: 5
- Applications concerning the protection of human rights: 2
- Others: 37

Important decisions

Identification: MKD-96-2-005
a) "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" / b) Constitutional Court / c) / d) 12.06.1996 / e) U.27/96 /f)/g) Sluzben vesnik na Republika Makedonija (Official Gazette), no. 33/96 / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
General Principles - Legality.
Institutions - Public finances - Taxation.
Fundamental Rights - Civil and political rights - Equality - Scope of application - Public burdens.
Fundamental Rights - Civil and political rights -Inviolability of the home.
Fundamental Rights - Civil and political rights - Right to property - Other limitations.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Income tax.

Headnotes:
The Constitution guarantees the inviolability of the home. The right to the inviolability of the home may be restricted only by a court decision in case of detection or prevention of criminal offences or protection of people's health.
The provisions of a statute which authorise the officer of public tax administration to enter into the rooms of the taxpayer against his will in order to make an inventory of the objects suitable for forced tax collection and which are assumed to be found in the rooms, actually provides for the unlawful entry into the home of a taxpayer.
The Constitution guarantees the right of ownership of property. No person may be deprived of his property or of the rights deriving from it, except in cases concerning the public interest which are determined by law.
The provision which allows forced tax collection not only from the taxpayer, but also from the adult members of his family who live together with the taxpayer at the moment when the tax obligation arises, is unconstitutional since it introduces restrictions or on the deprivation of another person's property rights only because of the fact of living together with the taxpayer.

Summary:
The case was initiated by a citizen challenging the constitutionality of two provisions of the Statute on Personal Income's Tax (Official Gazette, no. 80/93).
The first provision provided that if the taxpayer declined to open his rooms by himself to allow the officer of public tax administration to make an inventory of the objects suitable for forced tax collect, which are assumed to be found in the rooms, the officer is authorised to open the closed rooms and to enter against the will of the taxpayer.
The Constitutional Court found that this provision was not in accordance with the constitutional guarantee of the inviolability of the home, which may be restricted only by a court decision in cases of detection or prevention of criminal offences or the protection of people's health. The challenged provision provided for entering into the taxpayer's rooms against his will. Since the Statute did not specifically define the kinds of rooms into which the officer may enter against the will of the taxpayer, it could mean that the home of the taxpayer is also included, which would make this provision unconstitutional.
The other challenged provision provided for forced tax collection not only from the taxpayer, but also from the adult members of his family who lived together with the taxpayer at the moment when the tax obligation arose.
The right to ownership of property is guaranteed by the Constitution. No person may be deprived of his property or of the rights deriving from it, except in cases concerning the public interest which are determined by law. Considering that the challenged provision provided for forced tax collecting not only from the taxpayer, but also from the adult members of his family who lived together with the taxpayer at the moment when the tax obligation arose, the Court ruled that this provision expanded the constitutional framework, since it introduced a restriction on or a deprivation of another person's property rights only because of the fact of living together with the taxpayer.

Languages: Macedonian.

Identification: MKD-96-2-006
a) "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" / b) Constitutional Court / c) / d) 03.07.1996 / e) U.297/95 / f) / g) Sluzben vesnik na Republika Makedonija (Official Gazette), no. 40/96 / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
General Principles - Separation of powers.
Institutions - Executive bodies - Powers.
Institutions - Courts - Jurisdiction.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Administrative offences.

Headnotes:
The Constitution does not draw any distinction between penal offences based upon the level of their social danger, and has not established different types of penal offences. Therefore, the principles of criminal procedure are applicable to all penal offences in general, including misdemeanours.
Guilt in respect of a penal offence may be established only by a court decision.
The State administrative bodies are not authorised to conduct any type of penal proceedings against citizens, nor to pronounce sentences following conviction for criminal or other offences.

Summary:
The case was initiated by a legal person challenging the constitutionality and legality of the provision contained in the Rules on the Government, which authorised the government and other bodies of the State administration to conduct penal proceedings against natural and legal persons and to pronounce sentences in some cases of minor non-criminal (administrative) offences.
The Constitutional Court repealed the challenged provision on the grounds that, according to the Constitu-tion, guilt in respect of a penal offence may be established only by a court decision. The Constitution does not distinguish among penal offences on the basis of the level of their social danger nor in regard to the establish-ment of different types of penal offences, which means that only courts are authorised to conduct penal proceedings. Under the Constitution, the legislative, executive and judicial power are strictly divided and their competences may not be mixed. Therefore the State administrative bodies may not be authorised to conduct any type of penal proceedings.

Supplementary information:
In the same period of reference the Constitutional Court repealed provisions concerning the same matter which were contained in ten other statutes.

Languages: Macedonian.