the Constitutional Court at the time when his complaint had been lodged.

that court made an error and failed to examine the applicants’ constitutional appeal on the merits.

a constitutional complaint.

    On 4 July 2017 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as being lodged out of the four-month time-limit.

Secondly, the Constitutional Court itself is seized in the context of proceedings for the review of the constitutionality of Article 300.1 of the 2009 Criminal Code (“the 2009 CC”), while the underlying

  The applicant challenged that decision and, after exhaustion of previous remedies, lodged a constitutional complaint related to the reduction of his pension and challenging the constitutionality

The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the constitutionality of the relevant provision of the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure before the Constitutional Court.

The Act was challenged before the Constitutional Court within the framework of an abstract ex post facto control.

The Act was challenged before the Constitutional Court within the framework of an abstract ex post facto control.

That declaration was suspended and later annulled by the Constitutional Court.

One individual filed a constitutional initiative ( ustavna pobuda ) with the Constitutional Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 92.

Although the Constitutional Court does not award compensation to petitioners as such, the applicants submit that they have nevertheless submitted a complaint to the Constitutional Court, requesting the

Following an application by the State Court for abstract constitutionality review, in January 2013 the relevant legislation was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, regarding their specific

    On 25 July 2007 the applicant challenged the constitutionality of the ban under Article 5 § 2 of the Electoral Code.

The applicants sought to have the initial judgment enforced and challenged the constitutionality of the interpretative provision on the ground that, as it affected final decisions, it infringed the non-retroactivity

The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint on 7 July 2016, challenging the constitutionality of section 159/A of the Electronic Telecommunications Act.

On 2 July 2002 the Federal Constitutional Court, sitting as a panel of three judges, refused to admit A’s constitutional complaint.

    On 31 May 2002 the Social Court dismissed his claim as it had no constitutional concern about the constitutionality of section 6 § 2 no. 4 of the German Pension Transfer Law. 6.

[S] [G] a présenté, par mémoire spécial reçu le 17 avril 2023, une question prioritaire de constitutionnalité à l'occasion du pourvoi formé par lui contre l'arrêt de la chambre de l'instruction de la cour