Post by amina147 on Mar 6, 2024 5:24:06 GMT
The finality of the decisions given in some cases that may be considered unimportant in terms of procedural economy and the principles of trial within a reasonable time does not constitute a violation of the right to request the review of the verdict, and the decisions regarding the rejection of the appeal against the decisions of the first instance court do not contradict the right to review the verdict. However, if the appeal application is accepted by the regional administrative court, the decision of the first instance court is annulled and a decision is made on the merits of the case, failure to appeal against this first-hand decision of the regional administrative court may constitute a violation of the right to review the decision.
Because, it cannot be said that all disputes whose subject matter is above the appeal limit and below , TL are insignificant in terms of amount, and due to the rule, appeal cannot be filed against the decisions of the regional administrative court. In this context, in a tax, full judgment or annulment case, which cannot be considered insignificant in terms of its Austria Phone Numbers List amount, if a decision is made against the plaintiff by the regional administrative court for the first time, the inability to review this decision due to the rule imposes an excessive burden on people. In addition, the balance between the aim of reducing the workload of the Council of State and the interests of the plaintiffs in exercising their right to request.
The review of the judgment is disrupted to the disadvantage of the plaintiffs. As a result, the inability to appeal against the decision of the regional administrative court, which ruled against the plaintiffs for the first time in all tax cases, full jurisdiction cases and cases arising from administrative proceedings, whose subject matter is below , TL, imposes a disproportionate limitation on the right to request a review of the decision. For the reasons given above, the Constitutional Court decided that the rule was unconstitutional and annulled it. You can access the original version of the "Decision of the Constitutional Court dated . . and numbered E: K: " published in the Official Gazette dated here.
Because, it cannot be said that all disputes whose subject matter is above the appeal limit and below , TL are insignificant in terms of amount, and due to the rule, appeal cannot be filed against the decisions of the regional administrative court. In this context, in a tax, full judgment or annulment case, which cannot be considered insignificant in terms of its Austria Phone Numbers List amount, if a decision is made against the plaintiff by the regional administrative court for the first time, the inability to review this decision due to the rule imposes an excessive burden on people. In addition, the balance between the aim of reducing the workload of the Council of State and the interests of the plaintiffs in exercising their right to request.
The review of the judgment is disrupted to the disadvantage of the plaintiffs. As a result, the inability to appeal against the decision of the regional administrative court, which ruled against the plaintiffs for the first time in all tax cases, full jurisdiction cases and cases arising from administrative proceedings, whose subject matter is below , TL, imposes a disproportionate limitation on the right to request a review of the decision. For the reasons given above, the Constitutional Court decided that the rule was unconstitutional and annulled it. You can access the original version of the "Decision of the Constitutional Court dated . . and numbered E: K: " published in the Official Gazette dated here.