[БОДЛОГЫН СУДАЛГАА, ШИНЖИЛГЭЭ] Боть-6 145 1. Constitution of Austria Part B The Constitutional Court Article 137 [Pecuniary Claims] The Constitutional Court pronounces on pecuniary claims of the Federation, the States, the Districts, the Counties and County Associations which cannot be settled by ordinary legal process nor be liquidated by the ruling of an administrative authority. Article 138 [Conflicts of Competence] (1) The Constitutional Court also pronounces on conflicts of competence: a) between courts and administrative authorities; b) between the Administrative Court and all other courts, in particular between the Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court itself, as well as between the ordinary courts and other courts; c) between the States as well as between a State and the Federation. (2) The Constitutional Court furthermore determines at the application of the Federal Government, or a State Government whether an act of legislation or execution falls into the competence of the Federation or the States. Article 138a [Competence Agreements] (1) The Constitutional Court establishes on application by the Federal Government or a State Government concerned whether an agreement within the meaning of Article 15a (1) exists and whether the obligations arising from such an agreement, save in so far as it is a matter of pecuniary claims, have been fulfilled. (2) If it is stipulated in an agreement within the meaning of Article 15a (2), the Court also establishes on application by a State Government concerned whether such an agreement exists and whether the obligations arising from such an agreement, save in so far as it is a matter of pecuniary claims, have been fulfilled. Article 139 [Ordinances] (1) The Constitutional Court pronounces on application by a court whether ordinances issued by a Federal or State authority are contrary to law, but ex officio in so far as the Court would have to apply such an ordinance in a pending suit. It also pronounces on application by the Federal Government whether ordinances issued by a State authority are contrary to law, and likewise on application by the County concerned whether ordinances issued by a County supervisory authority in accordance with Article 119a (6) are contrary to law. It also pronounces whether ordinances are contrary to law when an application alleges direct infringement of personal rights through such illegality in so far as the ordinance has become operative for the applicant without the delivery of a judicial decision or the issue of a ruling; Article 8 (3) applies analogously to such applications. (2) If the litigant in a suit lodged with the Constitutional Court, entailing application of an ordinance by the Administrative Court, receives satisfaction, the proceedings initiated to examine the ordinance's legality shall nevertheless continue. (3) The Constitutional Court may rescind an ordinance as contrary to law only to the extent that its rescission was expressly submitted or the Court would have had to apply it in the pending suit. If the Court reaches the conclusion that the whole ordinance a) has no foundation in law; b) was issued by an authority without competence in the matter; or c) was published in a manner contrary to law, it shall rescind the whole ordinance as illegal. This does not apply if rescission of the whole ordinance manifestly runs contrary to the legitimate interests of the litigant who has filed an application pursuant to the last sentence in Paragraph (1) or whose suit has been the occasion for the initiation of ex officio examination proceedings into the ordinance. (4) If the ordinance has, at the time of the Constitutional Court's delivery of its judgment, already been repealed and the proceedings were initiated ex officio or the application was filed by a court or an applicant alleging direct infringement of his personal rights through the ordinance's illegality, the Court must pronounce whether the ordinance contravened the law. Paragraph (3) applies analogously. (5) The judgment by the Constitutional Court which rescinds an ordinance as contrary to law imposes on the highest competent authority in the Federation or State the obligation to publish the rescission without delay. This applies analogously in the case of a pronouncement pursuant to Paragraph (4) above. The
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjE1NzIw