Вид на акта
искане
Дата
01-01-1970 г.
Към дело
/

  DECISION No. 5 OF MAY 17, 1995 ON CC No. 3/95

Motion by a group of Members of Parliament challenging the constitutionality of the following articles of the Standing Orders of the National Assembly (DV, No. 13 of February 3, 1995).
On Art. 18 para 2 subpara 3 of the Standing Orders providing for a power of the Parliamentary Ethic Committee to discuss and give opinion on indictment implicating a Member of Parliament as involved in corruption. The Constitutional Court ruled the text was not anticonstitutional. The powers of the Parliamentary Ethic Committee define it as a committee of the MP status. There can be no justification to deny that committee the possibility to watch on the conduct of Members of Parliament that may not be a crime but discredits them as members of the Legislature. Prevention of corruption on the part of Members of Parliament is a matter of maintaining their constitutional legal and moral status.
On Art. 72 of the Standing Orders. It is claimed Art. 101 of the C. was violated as the National Assembly passed a law that the President had returned with a single ballot in contravention to Art. 88 para 1 of the C. The Constitutional Court ruled the text was conforming to the Constitution. Art. 88 para 1 of the C. refers to submitted bills to be read and voted upon twice. Art. 101 of the C. is special vis a vis Art. 88 para 1 and pertains to the President's right to suspensive veto. When the President uses his prerogative of suspensive veto he returns a law that Parliament has passed. The return of a law is not a reversal to a bill. Hence the different voting procedure in such a hypothesis.
On Art. 95 of the Standing Orders providing that the National Assembly and a respective committee shall be free to summon an official or a citizen for questioning. The Constitutional Court ruled the text was not anticonstitutional in principle. The article though is not to be applied to the President, Vice President, the Constitutional Court justices and all magistrates for, if applied, this would be in contravention to the fundamental constitutional principle of separation of powers.
On Art. 105 para 3 of the Standing Orders in the part of the term "proofs" used there. The Constitutional Court ruled the motion was founded. The provision of Art. 105 para 1 regarding the term "sufficient proof" is in contravention to the principle of the separation of powers as only the Judiciary can judge the sufficiency of proofs. The phrase "sufficient data" is the correct one.