Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution asserting that his right to a disability pension was infringed by a judgment of the Supreme Court affirming the denial of the pension based upon an erroneous assessment of his disability status. The Applicant argued that medical documentation supported his application, The Supreme Court decided that the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (MLSW) had authority to make the determination, concluding that its assessment was correct, The Court declined to resolve the factual dispute, noting that its only role was to ensure compliance with Constitutional guarantees, citing Akdivar v. Turkey, The Court held that the Referral was inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Rules 36.2(b) and 36.2(c) of the Rules of Procedure because the Applicant had not substantiated any Constitutional violation, and had failed to specify which Constitutional rights were violated by public authorities per Article [48] of the Law on the Constitutional Court, or to make a prima facie showing that a lower court or the MLSW had been biased, or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair, noting that an Applicant’s mere dissatisfaction with an outcome is not a sufficient basis for a referral, citing Mezotur-Tiszacugi Tarsulat vs. Hungary