STATING BY THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT THAT ITS DECISIONS ARE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. CASE.
STATING BY THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT THAT ITS DECISIONS ARE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. CASE.

Summary/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.

• Details
• Contents