The Constitutional Court abolished the DUP for part of the municipality of Centar
The Constitutional Court annulled the Decision by which on July 18, 2014, the Council of the Municipality of Centar adopted a Detailed Urban Plan for City Quarter J 07, with locations Kapistec, Medical Rehabilitation Institute, Staro Vodno, Dolno Vodno, Malo Kurilo, Tsveqara. According to the explanation from the court, from the moment its decision is published in the Official Gazette, it will no longer be possible to issue a building permit for the indicated localities.
- The court considered that the Decision on the DUP of the Municipality of Centar is contrary to the Law on Local Self-Government, specifically Article 62 paragraph 2 of this Law. The Constitutional Court judged that the necessary majority of 12 votes "for" was not secured, as the Law provides - said after today's session the spokeswoman of the Constitutional Court, Hristina Belovska.
She clarified that according to the legal opinion of the Court, out of a total of 23 members as counted by the Municipal Council, 12 members were present, of which 11 members voted "for" the adoption of the Decision on the Detailed Urban Plan, and one was against.
The Constitution in Article 110, as Belovska said, stipulates that the regulations should be in accordance with the laws, which is not the case in the specific situation.
According to the Court, with the adoption of that Decision on the Detailed Urban Plan in the Municipality of Centar, one of the fundamental values of the constitutional order, namely the rule of law, has been violated.
- According to today's decision of the Constitutional Court, the Municipality of Centar will not be able to issue building permits for the specific locations that are covered by the Detailed Urban Plan, because that DUP does not exist from the day the Court's decision is published in the Official Gazette - Belovska pointed out.
The Constitutional Court, as she added, made the decision with a majority of votes, i.e. five votes "for", and one of the judges announced a separate opinion demanding that the court be declared incompetent, just as it did, for a similar case in 2017.
