The fact that the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. U 68/02 was adopted in the interim and that the mentioned provisions of the Law on Excise Tax and Turnover of Goods were declared unconstitutional was the reason for the Constitutional Court to conclude that the legal circumstances have changed in relation to the situation at the time of filing the appeal. Taking into account the mentioned decision of the Constitutional Court and Articles 67 and 68 of the Rules of the Procedure of the Constitutional Court, the appellant had a possibility to address the administrative body as an issuer of the challenged ruling and request this body to modify its act which was passed based on the procedure arising from the provisions of law which were declared unconstitutional, in which case the competent body is obliged to renew the proceedings and harmonize its act with the decisions of the Constitutional Court.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 376/04 of 12 April 2005
The Constitutional Court concludes that in the interim the legal circumstances have changed considering that the Cantonal Commission adopted a ruling whereby the status of appellant as a laid-off employee was established. This ruling was delivered to the appellant on 17 June 2004. This no longer concerns the same legal matter that was valid at the time of filing the appeal, when the appellant complained that the Cantonal Commission was not willing to adopt a ruling on his appeal.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 411/04 of 18 May 2005
In the interim, as of the date on which the appeal was filed, the Commission adopted a decision. The appellant filed the respective appeal due to the fact that the Commission has failed to adopt a decision. Accordingly, the conclusion is made that the legal circumstances have changed in relation to the situation at the moment of filing the appeal.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 946/05 of 9 May 2006, paragraph 5
The appellant addressed the Constitutional Court because the Cantonal Commission was delaying adoption of a decision whereby the appellant’s employment status would be resolved. Given the fact that in the interim the Cantonal Commission adopted the ruling whereby the appellant’s employer was ordered to regulate her employment status in accordance with Article 143 of the Labor Law, the legal circumstances have changed and therefore there was no point in further consideration of the appellant’s allegations stated in the appeal.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 1186/05 of 9 May 2006, paragraph 6
In view of the fact that modification of legislative solution relating to the regulation of the issue of the ownership right registration over the apartments purchased from the category of the so called nationalized and confiscated apartments transpired after the submission of appeal, the Constitutional Court concluded in the aforementioned decision, referring to the information of the Cantonal Court of 8 January 2009, that the modification of the competent ordinary courts’ conduct occurred as regards the appellants’ requests in such manner that the ordinary courts decided on the merits of their requests, and that in the present case the modified legal circumstances have arisen for which any further consideration of the allegations of this appeal became redundant.
• Decision on Admissibility No. AP 3229/08 of 17 September 2009, registration of the ownership right over the purchased apartments falling in the category of the so called nationalized and confiscated apartments