CONSTITUTIONAL (DIS)HARMONY OF GUARANTEES OFTHE RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP

U najviše vrednote ustavnog poretka Republike Hrvatske spada i nepovredivost vlasništva (članak 3. Ustava Republike Hrvatske - u nastavku teksta: Ustav). U pristupu toj ustavnoj odredbi, koja kao svoj antipod ima ograničenje prava vlasništva1, treba, kako bi se njezin domašaj mogao u potpunosti sagledati, poći i od ustavne vrednote - vladavine prava, a i ustavnog načela, te od ustavnosti i zakonitosti. Naime, i ova druga ustavna vrednota (također iz Članka 3. Ustava) a i ustavno načelo u funkciji su ostvarivanja i vrednota ustavnog poretka, ali i njihovih ustavnih ograničenja. Pri tome materija koja je predmet ovog članka odnosi se u svojoj uzajamnosti i isprepletenosti kako na tijela sudbene tako i izvršne vlasti, tijela državne uprave, te ima zajednički ustavni značajInviolability o f the right on ownership belongs among the supreme values of the constitutional order of the Republic of Croatia, as expressly stipulated by the Article 3 of the Constitution. For its constitutional and the following legislative implementation the road marker makes also the provision of the Article 48 of the Constitution on the constitutional guarantee of the right on ownership, as well as the Law on Ownership and Other Property Rights (Narodne novine no.91/1996). By pointing at numerous legal documents,for instance the Code of Vinodol of 1288, ad the series of Medieval Statutes, which prove a commitment to the law and the rule o f law, as one o f the fundamental properties of the historical substance of Croatian people, the author presents, on those foundations established survey of the constitutional jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, in relation to decisions of the administrative as well as the judicial and even the legislative power. By this he also defines the constitutional position of the Constitutional Court in the System of separation of powers, as an interim power with a completely defined authority. Within the apparent (dis)harmony of inviolability of ownership and the constitutionally provided restrictions of the right ownership, the author finds an elimination of constitutional or legislative cacophony, and by this its prevention in practice and a possibility of a constitutional harmony between those two antipodes