This master's thesis examines legal interest as a procedural prerequisite for initiating
proceedings to review constitutionality or legality before the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Slovenia, with a particular focus on the evolution and changing nature of the
requirement for the directness of legal interest. The aim of the thesis is to determine how the
content of "directness" has been shaped through the Constitutional Court's case law and whether
a trend toward restricting access to constitutional review can be identified in its development.
An analysis of case law reveals that the requirement for directness did not emerge merely with
the stricter standards adopted after 2007; rather, it was present as an element of legal interest
from the very beginning of constitutional review following Slovenia's independence. However,
the understanding of this concept has changed significantly over time. Initially, the
Constitutional Court interpreted directness broadly, but it gradually established a requirement
for a more concrete link between the petitioner and the challenged regulation. For instance,
between 2001 and 2003, the Court required proof that proceedings in the relevant legal area had
already commenced; a pivotal shift in the understanding of directness occurred around 2007,
when the concept became linked to the requirement of prior exhaustion of legal remedies and
the simultaneous availability of a constitutional complaint. Although case law in 2009 showed
a certain opening up of this standard (particularly through the development of the new concept
of unacceptable legal risk), a renewed tightening can be observed in the most recent case law,
primarily due to the requirement to first pursue a claim for damages.
|
