Constitutional Court: Incorrect Application of Law is Not a Constitutional Violation

The Constitutional Court ruled to reject the appeal challenging the constitutionality of Decree-Law No. (83) of 2025, which repealed Article 29 bis of the Housing Care Law. This repealed article had allowed a head of household who had previously obtained a loan from the Credit Bank to build or purchase a home, and who subsequently sold the property once and fully repaid the loan, to apply for a government housing unit under usufruct or rental rights, provided that he and his family did not own another residence.

The appellants clarified that they had submitted applications to the Public Authority for Housing Care in accordance with the repealed article. Some of them were allocated housing units and signed rental contracts, while others remained on waiting lists. However, the repeal of the article led to some being demanded to vacate their homes and others having their applications halted. They considered this to infringe upon rights and legal statuses that had arisen prior to the issuance of the decree.

The Court emphasized that accepting a direct appeal requires the existence of a direct personal interest and harm resulting directly from the legislative text itself. It clarified that the decree was limited to repealing the article without regulating the situations of previous beneficiaries or pending applications.

The Court explained that the issue raised by the appellants pertained to how the Public Authority for Housing Care applied the law, rather than to the constitutionality of the text itself. It stressed that the incorrect application of the law does not, in itself, constitute a constitutional violation. It noted that the Court’s jurisdiction does not extend to how the law is understood or applied; its oversight is limited to determining whether the legislative text violates the Constitution. Based on this, the Court concluded by rejecting the appeal and confiscating the guarantee.