STATISTICS OF PROCEEDINGS PART III PART II PART I The largest number of special proceedings were related to providing an opinion on a legal act within constitutional review proceedings and opinions on draft legal acts and documents (34 and 19 proceedings respectively). 2.4. Cases without substantive proceedings The Chancellor of Justice does not initiate substantive proceedings with regard to a petition if its resolution is not within his competence. In that case, the Chancellor explains to the petitioner which institution should deal with the issue. The Chancellor can also reject a petition if it is clearly unfounded or if it is not clear from the petition what constituted the alleged violation of the petitioner’s rights or principles of good administration. The Chancellor is not competent to intervene if a court judgment has been made in the matter of the petition, the matter is concurrently subject to judicial proceedings or pre-trial complaint proceedings (e.g. when a complaint is being reviewed by an individual labour dispute settlement committee or similar pre-judicial body). The Chancellor cannot, and is not permitted to duplicate these proceedings, as the possibility of filing a petition with the Chancellor of Justice is not considered a legal remedy. Rather, the Chancellor of Justice is a petition body, with no direct possibility to use any means of enforcement. The Chancellor resolves cases of violation of people’s rights if the individual cannot use any other legal remedies. In cases when a person can file an administrative challenge or use other legal remedies or if administrative challenge proceedings or other non-compulsory pre-trial proceedings are pending, the Chancellor’s decision is based on the right of discretion, which takes into account the circumstances of each particular case. The Chancellor may also decide not to initiate proceedings with regard to a petition if it was filed more than one year after the date on which the person became, or should have become, aware of violation of their rights. Applying the one-year deadline is in the discretion of the Chancellor and depends on the circumstances of the case – for example, severity of the violation, its consequences, whether it affected the rights or duties of third parties, etc. In 2012, the Chancellor declined to open substantive proceedings in 1314 cases, which makes up 81.6% of the total number of cases. Proceedings were not opened for the following reasons: • lack of competence by the Chancellor (415 cases); • the individual could file an administrative challenge or use other legal remedies (458 cases); • judicial proceedings or compulsory pre-trial proceedings were pending in the matter (179 cases); • petition did not comply with requirements under the Chancellor of Justice Act (127 cases) • a petition was manifestly unfounded (108 cases); • the petition had been filed one year after the petitioner discovered the violation (9 cases); • administrative challenge proceedings or other voluntary pre-trial proceedings were pending (9 cases); • no public interest for the review of conformity of legislation of general application with the Constitution or an Act (9 cases) (see also Figure 8). 38