Subject of the dispute: Recovery of damages caused by an unconstitutional law that taxed pensions above a certain amount.
Main arguments of the court: The Supreme Court revealed significant procedural violations in previous court decisions. First, the courts did not clarify whether the wording of the law before 2016 was indeed unconstitutional. Second, the courts did not establish the proper defendant – the state must be represented by the relevant authority that directly caused the damage. Moreover, the courts did not fully investigate all the circumstances of the case and evidence.
Court decision: To cancel previous court decisions and refer the case for a new hearing to establish all circumstances and determine the proper defendant.
