DECISION No 6 OF MARCH 29, 2001 ON CC No 17/2000
Sixty-one Members of the 38th National Assembly approached the Constitutional Court, drawing on Art. 149 para 1 subparas 1 and 2 of the Constitution and asked the Court: a) to give a binding interpretation on Art. 106 of the Constitution, the passage “The Council of Ministers shall manage the implementation of the State Budget…” and; b) to pronounce Art. 35 para 2 of the Law on the Structure of the State Budget, viz. that the Minister of Finance may authorize supplementary credit, to be anticonstitutional.
On the binding interpretation, the Constitutional Court ruled as follows: the State Budget management is a typical function of the Executive. Art. 106 of the Constitution assigns it to the Council of Ministers and the legal regulations of this management are treated in the Law on the Structure of the State Budget. The Council of Ministers manages on a daily basis the implementation of the annual State Budget approved by Parliament. While the Council of Ministers manages the implementation of the State Budget, it shall be free to spend more than the approved appropriations providing the law permits to spend in excess and sets conditions that the Council of Ministers has complied with.
The challenge of the constitutionality of Art. 35 para 2 of the Law on the Structure of the State Budget was dismissed. The Constitutional Court concluded that the Constitution contains no provision to the effect that Parliament shall not ask the Minister of Finance to reallocate supplementary credit, i.e. that the credit is offset by a surplus of own revenues or by resorting to new sources of revenue, without causing the balance of the State Budget to deteriorate. This gives the Government freedom of maneuverability, which is not conflicting with the National Assembly’s powers related to the State Budget approval and State Budget performance report.
