Awill reject as inadmissible the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of art. first sentence of Law no. related to the provisions of art. first sentence of Law no. . . The fact that all the credit contracts that are the subject of the cases pending before the courts that notified the Court with these exceptions of unconstitutionality were concluded before the entry into force of the new Civil Code is also relevant in the examination of the admissibility of the referral having as its object the unconstitutionality of the thesis the second of art. of Law no.
The Court notes that according to its first sentence the provisions of Law no. also applies to Country Email List credit contracts in progress at the time of its entry into force and according to the second sentence of art. Law no. applies to credit contracts concluded after the date of its entry into force. Thus the exception of unconstitutionality of the provisions of art. the second sentence is to be rejected as inadmissible as it concerns contracts concluded after the entry into force of Law no. . . In Decision no. of.
October the Court found the unconstitutionality of the phrase as well as from the devaluation of real estate in art. of Law no. by reference to the provisions of art. of the Constitution which guarantees the right to private property. Therefore any criticisms brought to this constitutionality of the phrase as well as from the devaluation of real estate have become inadmissible and the Constitutional Court will reject them as such. . The Court finds on the one hand that by Decision no. of October held that the provisions of art. first sentence related to the provisions of art. second sentence art. art. and art. of.
發表於 2023-12-27 19:06:54
收藏