Constitutional Court: Misapplication of the law in 'Who Sold His House' case is not a constitutional violation

The Constitutional Court ruled to reject the appeal challenging the constitutionality of Law-Decree No. 83 of 2025, which repealed Article 29 bis of the Housing Care Law. This repealed article had allowed a head of household who had previously obtained a loan from the Credit Bank to build or purchase a home, and who subsequently sold the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 a usufruct or rental arrangement, provided that he and his family did not own another residence (the “law regarding those who sell their homes”). The appellants explained that they had submitted applications to the Public Authority for Housing Care in accordance with the repealed article; some obtained housing units and signed rental contracts, while others remained on waiting lists. However, the repeal led to demands that some vacate their units and the suspension of applications by others, which they argued infringed upon rights and legal positions that had arisen prior to the issuance of the decree. The Court affirmed that accepting a direct appeal requires the existence of a direct personal interest and harm resulting from the legislative text itself, clarifying that the decree was limited to repealing the article without regulating the status of previous beneficiaries or pending applications. It indicated that the issues 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, emphasizing that the incorrect application of the law does not, in itself, constitute a constitutional violation. The Court noted that it has no jurisdiction over how the law is understood or applied, and its oversight is confined to assessing whether the legislative text contravenes the Constitution. Consequently, it dismissed the appeal and confiscated the bail.