DECISION No 1 OF 23 MARCH 2004 ON CC No 1/2004
The case was opened upon the request of 61 Members of Parliament from the 39th National Assembly.
The CC was approached to provide mandatory interpretation of Art. 129, para 2 of the Constitution on whether in the case of terminating the mandate of persons under this provision before their set term of office the newly elected person completes the mandate of their predecessor.
When ruling on this case, the Court decided the following:
Art. 129, para 2 and 3 of the Constitution regulate the appointment and dismissal of the Chairman of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the Chairman of the Supreme Administrative Court and the Chief Prosecutor. Under this provision, appointment and dismissal is made by the President of the Republic, the appointment being for a term of seven years and the dismissal before the seven year's period has elapsed being based on the grounds that are explicitly stated. The period of appointment is not dependent on the time during which, up to the dismissal, the position was taken by somebody else. Being an individual body, the person in office is independent and separate from the term of the person dismissed from office. Conditions for digressing from the defined period are not laid out in the Constitution and cannot be introduced by interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, appointment is made for a period of seven years regardless of the period during which persons appointed previously exercised their powers.
In addition, the Court noted the contradiction with interpretation of other constitutional provisions concerning the term of office of Constitutional Court judges and elected members of the Supreme Judicial Council. In this connection it was pointed out that the provided interpretation concerned collegiate bodies whose constitution is performed in accordance with constitutional principles that stipulate that the deputy complete the mandate of the person replaced.
