Let us emphasize the obvious - the determination that the court will examine the tax laws in the second stage of the constitutional examination does not mean that the court will determine that such laws are unconstitutional. A determination that a tax law violates the constitutional right to property only means that the court will have to examine whether, despite the infringement of the right to property, the infringement is done lawfully in accordance with the tests of the limitation clause. The fear of judicial review (or even of flooding the courts with many petitions relating to tax legislation) is not, in my opinion, a real concern. the rules of restraint that the court applies to itself in reviewing laws in general; And in reviewing legislation of economic significance in particular, it means that the vast majority of the petitions that will be filed in relation to tax laws will be rejected (as is also evident from this judgment). At the same time, in those exceptional and rare cases - to the extent that there are any - in which judicial intervention in tax laws is required, the court will be able to conduct this audit as required.
- Finally, I will note above necessity that with respect to some of the categories outlined by my colleague Justice Grosskopf, it is not at all clear why they have the potential to affect the question of whether the tax law violates the constitutional right to property. This is even if I proceed from my colleague's assumption that only tax laws with certain characteristics violate the right to property.
Thus, for example, with regard to the "second category" that my colleague listed among the categories suspected of violating the right to property, which is "tax legislation that involves significant harm to important public interests." As an example of this category, my colleague notes, among other things, "taxes that have a material adverse effect on the environment or public health." In my opinion, it is doubtful whether the fact that a certain tax harms the environment or health (or any other public interest) constitutes an indication that the said tax violates the right to property specifically (as opposed to a possible violation of other constitutional rights).