and 21 the Constitutional Court Judgment in the Case No. 2007-01-01 passed on 8 June 2007). 34. In accordance with Clause 11 of Article 31 of the Constitutional Court Law, if the Constitutional Court has decided that a legal provision is unconformable to a legal provision of a higher legal force, the Court is obliged to set the moment when the impugned provision becomes invalid. In this Case, the Applicantss have requested to declare the impugned provisions as invalid from the day of their adoption, which is 16 June 2009. For that reason, the Constitutional Court had to decide on the moment from which the impugned provisions would loose their validity. Article 32, Paragraph Three of the Constitutional Court Law prescribes that “any legal norm (act) which the Constitutional Court has determined as incompatible with the legal norm of higher force shall be considered invalid as of the day of publication of the decision of the Constitutional Court, unless the Constitutional Court has ruled otherwise.” Thus, announcing an impugned provision as unconformable to the legal norm of higher force does not necessarily mean that the provision in question must be declared as invalid as of the day of publication of the judgment. In Article 32, Paragraph Three of the Constitutional Court Law, the legislator has conferred to the Constitutional Court wide freedom of action to decide from which moment an impugned legal provision – that has been declared as unconformable to a legal norm of higher legal force – becomes invalid. To invalidate the impugned provision not from the day of publication of the judgment but from some other moment, the Constitutional Court must substantiate such a decision. Determining the exact moment from which the impugned provisions lose validity, the Constitutional Court, on the basis of its previous practice, would consider the following issues: – whether the invalidation of the impugned provisions with retrospective effect is required for the protection of fundamental rights of the Applicants; – whether there are any considerations due to which the impugned provisions would have to be invalidated with retrospective effect only in relation to the Applicants. The Constitutional Court has concluded in this Case that the impugned provisions violate the fundamental principles of judicial state and the fundamental rights granted to persons by the Constitution. There are no other ways to preclude the infringement of 68