Accordingly, such an opportunity – by virtue of legal logic of the constitutional principle of proportionality – can not recognized and for the case when the general meeting of all took place, provided that the interested co-owners had taken all necessary action to convene a general meeting, confirmed by documents. Ingenious, is not it? In its decisions the Constitutional Court has repeatedly pointed to the fact that he has no legislative powers and has no right to impose a new regulation, replacing the activities of the Federal Assembly. As the court he only checks for compliance of the contested provisions. But where is the truth? The Federal Law on Turnover of Agricultural Land, "literally pointing "General meeting of participants in share ownership did not approve the location of ", says nothing about the fact that under this formulation must be understood is that the meeting was conducted, but failed to take appropriate solutions. The phrase "general assembly did not approve" can be understood in different ways. As either: there has a quorum, but the general meeting has not taken any decision, either: there was no quorum, so the decision was taken (or Although the decision was made, but in the absence of a quorum is considered to be illegitimate), or: assembly generally not carried out, whereby the decision had been taken. Why Constitutional Court favors only one of language? The legislator is not explicitly stated that he specifically had in mind. A Constitutional Court seems to understand the legislature as a special, guided by the "legal logic" is not accessible for some reason the rest of the citizens.