The Shestach Local Council argued that the current mechanism is unfair, since only those communities that have decided to begin the amalgamation process are eligible to receive financial incentives from the Voluntary Amalgamation Fund. According to local government representatives, such a system places financial pressure on communities and could turn a voluntary choice into a decision dictated by the need to obtain additional funds.
The Constitutional Court did not agree with these arguments and concluded that the contested provisions do not violate the principle of local autonomy.
As noted in the court’s ruling, the funds of the Voluntary Amalgamation Fund are not a general source of financing for all administrative-territorial units, but rather constitute a special temporary financial instrument created specifically to support the amalgamation process and the localities participating in it.
The court also noted that providing financial incentives specifically to participants in the amalgamation process is consistent with the purpose of the mechanism, since such settlements assume additional tasks, expenses, and obligations associated with implementing the reform.
Thus, the Constitutional Court ruled that the petition filed by the Shestach Local Council was inadmissible for further consideration and upheld the existing rules for providing financial incentives within the framework of the voluntary amalgamation of localities.
Follow our updates
Have information for the newsroom? Share it with Logos-Press
Comments
0No comments yet. You can start the conversation.
Comments are open to readers with a Logos Press account.
Sign in to comment