DECISION No.3 OF MAY 17, 1994 ON CC No.1/94
Motion put forward by members of parliament for interpretation of Art. 56 of the C. concerning the right of magistrates to legal defence under the effective Supreme Judicial Council Act (DV, No. 74 of September 10, 1994). The petitioners ask the Court to rule whether the absence of provisions in the Act about the magistrates' right to defence does not render it unconstitutional and whether that is not in breach of Art. 56 enshrining the right of citizens to defence.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the right to defence is a fundamental, universal and personal right of citizens. It is a remedy for their other violated or imperilled rights or legitimate interests. The provision of Art. 56 is of a procedural nature. Although it does not determine the scope of the rights it safeguards their observance. This provision applies together with other constitutional and legislative norms, though it can also be applied alone as a remedy of last resort if no other remedies are envisaged. Art. 56 of the C. has immediate effect. Judges, procecutors and examining magistrates enjoy the right to defence on an equal footing. They can lodge appeals against acts of the Supreme Judicial Council, such as administrative acts, which infringe upon their rights or legitimate interests, both under the Supreme Judicial Council Act and before the Supreme Court under the Administrative Procedure Act.
