Case No 6 1/130611 In 2013, in two cases the Chancellor had to assess the constitutionality of the restriction arising from § 188(1) of the Family Law Act. On the basis of a petition from and individual, the Chancellor verified whether the restriction under the Family Law Act establishing that a parent may acquire and transfer securities on behalf of the child only with the consent of a court is contrary to the right under the Constitution to freely possess, use or make dispositions with respect to one’s property. The petitioner found that asking a court’s authorisation places the child (as the owner of shares in a fund) in a less favourable situation in comparison to other investors. In a similar issue, the Supreme Court118 has found that the Family Law Act can be interpreted in compatibility with the Constitution in a way that does not disproportionately restrict the rights of persons. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, in case of investment transactions the courts should prefer giving a general consent. If such general consent is granted a child’s legal representative does not have to have recourse to the court again every time (when making transactions on the basis of an investment contract) and the child will not be in a less favourable situation in comparison with other investors. As a result of the proceedings, the Chancellor concluded that the restriction under which a parent may acquire and transfer securities on behalf of a child only with the consent of a court is not incompatible with the Constitution. 7. Rights of a successor who is a minor in succeeding to units in a pension fund Case No 6-1/130664 PART II Acquisition and transfer of securities on behalf of a child PART III 6. PART IV special care service to minors in a manner which is suitable for them, including agreeing on the requirements and conditions for the provision of the service in the framework agreements concluded with the service providers and assess systematically and regularly the suitability of the 24-hour special care service provided to a child. PART I CANCELLOR OF JUSTICE AS OMBUDSMAN FOR CHILDREN The Chancellor was contacted by a petitioner who found that the provisions of the Funded Pensions Act regulating succession to the units of a pension fund are not in conformity with the rights or interests of a child under the Family Law Act. The petitioner questioned the proportionality of the requirement to have a court’s consent for the redemption of units in a pension fund, pointing out that a pension account can be opened for a child successor and the inherited units can be transferred to the account without a court’s consent while a court’s prior consent is needed for the redemption of the units in a pension fund. As redemption of units in a mandatory pension fund inherited by a minor constitutes transfer of securities and, under the Family Law Act, a court’s consent is required for transfer of securities, the main issue in this case was whether the restriction under the Family Law Act stipulating that a parent may transfer securities on behalf of a child only with the court’s consent is contrary to the Constitution. As a result of the proceedings, the Chancellor concluded that the requirement under the Family Law Act for a court’s consent for the redemption of units in a pension fund does not disproportionately restrict the right of a minor successor to freely make dispositions with respect to their property under § 32 of the Constitution. 118 See the Supreme Court Civil Law Chamber judgment of 5 June 2012, No 3-2-1-68-12. 49