(Constitutional Court Finding No. III. ÚS 247/14 of 28 Janu- ary 2016)
The complainants in this case were seeking reversal of a general court decision in which they were found not to be the owners of real estate they had acquired in good faith from a seller entered as the owner of the real estate in the Real Es- tate Cadaster, albeit on the basis of an absolutely invalid pur- chase agreement.
This finding is of importance primarily because it constitutes another decision whose ambition is to resolve the undesirable judicial schism between the Constitutional Court and the Su- preme Court regarding the possibility of acquiring real estate in good faith from a non-owner in accordance with the Civil Code legislation of 1964.
In its finding, the general court failed to reflect or examine the question of the good faith of the complainants, which is at variance with Art. 89(2) of the Constitution, as the Consti- tutional Court has consistently held the opinion in its case law that the existence of the good faith of the new acquirer must be rigorously considered and evaluated when assessing the acquisition of title to real estate entered in the Real Estate Cadaster from a non-owner. The absence of an assessment of the good faith of the real estate acquirer meant preference was given to the principle that no person may transfer to an- other more rights than he himself has over the principle of legal certainty, the protection of good faith and confidence in the acts of the State.
The approach taken by the Supreme Court, which has repeat- edly refused to respect the opinion of the Constitutional Court, resulted in a violation of the provision of Art. 89(2) of the Constitution in accordance with which enforceable deci- sions of the Constitutional Court are binding on all bodies and persons.