Piran building plan again in the Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court has already called on the Municipality of Piran to respond to the initiative of the Piran councilor Davorin Petaros to initiate the procedure on the constitutionality and legality of the decree on the Piran spatial plan along Belokriška Road. The ordinance had already fallen in the Constitutional Court in 2021, and the municipal council again adopted it and published it on March 7 in the Official Journal. Petaros and lawyer Marko Zorman claim that it is a violation of the integrity of the Constitutional Court and the abuse of power, therefore proposes priority treatment and retention of an unconstitutional decree.
Along Belokriška is a greenery above the Belokriška Road (above the blue building of the Diajska Lodge). Photo Boris Shuligoj
We have already reported that in February 2021 the Constitutional Court completely annulled the municipal detailed spatial plan along Belokriška Road in Portorož. However, Mayor Andrej Korenika is an annulled decree adopted in 2018 by the municipal council and signed by the then mayor Peter Bossman, again in 2024 at the municipal council meeting and published in March 2025. The municipality did so, although councilor Barbara IMENŠEK gained the opinion of former Constitutional Court Judge Ciril Ribičič, who explained to the councilors that this was not possible. « It was as if we did not know in Piran that there was no legal remedy against the decisions of the Constitutional Court, » Ribicic wrote, adding that it was an arbitrary explanation of the court’s decision, of « creative creation » of new background rules that have no legal basis. If they wanted to accept the appropriate spatial plan for the land, they would have to do so according to the prescribed procedure, with all the verification and re -acquires of approvals and opinions, for which they had at least six years in the municipality, but did not do so.
Legal advisor
Matoz and Musk
In March, in addition to re -publishing an unconstitutional spatial plan, they also adopted a decision on the location of this OPPN, although both lawyer Marko Zorman and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Spatial Planning explained to the municipality that they could not accept location checks because they did not have a fundamental (strategic) municipal spatial plan in the municipality. Such a position of mayor Andrei Korenika and the Municipal Council are mainly responsible for external legal advisers: lawyer Franci Matoz and lawyer Aleksij Mužina, who claims that the line ministry does not know his own law on landscaping. In response to these claims, the ministry said that by far the largest (five) procedures for the control of the laws of spatial planning documents in the country, in the case of Belokriška Road, it does not respect the Constitutional Court’s decision and that the building plan cannot be easily revived, but a new process of preparing the act should be carried out.
Signed under the new decree signed
Karst Bossman Mayor
Marko Zorman explains that they have adopted exactly the same text of the ordinance in Piran and signed even a former mayor from the previous term Peter Bossman. He rejected the explanation of France Matoz that the spatial plan had been canceled for the mere procedural error and that he was not judged in substance, which, in his opinion, was not a restraint to prevent the adoption of the same ordinance. Zorman claims that the ordinance ceased to be effective, as the Constitutional Court annulled it in its entirety. The Constitutional Court was sufficient to find out about the abnormality of the procedural nature to repeal its repeal, but this does not mean that the decree can be revoked by corrected the procedural error.
The ordinance, which was annulled by the Constitutional Court, was determined by the municipality that it was valid again. This is a violation of the rights and integrity of the Constitutional Court, an obvious abuse of power.
Marko Zorman, a lawyer
“It should not be disputed that, in accordance with the established legal standards, the annulment of the regulation means that the ordinance as a general regulation ceases to apply, ceases to exist and cease to be part of the legal order. The municipality now has to carry out a new procedure, according to the corrected space regulation law that has undergone a change in the meantime. Namely, before the first review, the municipality of Piran proposed to the Constitutional Court to determine the manner of execution of the decision and to carry out the referendum tasks (which were violated in the proceedings), but the Constitutional Court rejected this proposal, « says Zorman, who points to the inadmissible conduct of the municipality: » For the decree which the Constitutional Court annulled, the municipality found. This is a violation of the rights and integrity of the Constitutional Court, an obvious abuse of power. In this way, the Municipality of Piran causes a sense of uncertainty, unpredictability, what is true, what is not, what is permissible, what is not and how to act. This reduces confidence in the rule of law. «
At the initiative to assess the constitutionality of the Piran councilor Davorin Petaros, the Constitutional Court quickly reacted, as only a day after its receipt (April 18) sent an invitation to respond to Petaros’s allegations in the initiative. And the municipality responded in the first response to the Constitutional Court.
