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

  DECISION No.9 OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1994 ON CC No.11/94

Motion for establishing the unconstitutionality of Art.16, Paras 1 and 4, Subpara.3, Art. 22, Para.1, Subparas 5 and 6, Art. 24, Art.29, Para.1 Subparas 3, 5 and 6, Art.35, Art.125, Subpara.1 and Art.127, Paras 6 and 7 of the Judiciary Act (DV, No. 59 of July 22, 1994) and ] 3,8,10, Paras 2 and ] 11 of its Transitional and Concluding Provisions and hence the unconstitutionality of the entire Act or chapters and sections thereof, as well as with regard to the entry into force of the Act pursuant to the general procedure set forth in the C.
The Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the provisions of Art.16, Para.4, Subpara.3, Art.22, Para.1, Subparas 5 and 6, Art.24, Art 29, Para.1, Subparas 1 and 5 of the Judiciary Act and that part of ] 3, Para.1 of its Transitional and Concluding Provisions which says: "except the Supreme Court justices". The Court ruled that the Act's imperfections and its conflicting provisions violate the principle of Art.4, Para.1 of the C. In this way, privileges for one category of lawyers are created and the rights of others are restricted in violation of the principle of equality before the law. The principles of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary are encroached upon - Art.8 and Art.117, Para.2 of the C., as well as the provisions of Art.129 and Art.130, Para.4 of the C.
The proceedings on establishing the unconstitutionality of Art.16, Para 1 of the Judiciary Act and ] 8 and 11 of its Transitional and Concluding Provisions, as well as on the "entry into force of the Act pursuant to the general procedure set forth in the C." have been suspended due to the fact that the Constitutional Court has already ruled on identical motions by its Decision No.7 of August 11, 1994 on c.c. No.10/94 and Decision No.8 of September 15, 1994 on c.c. No.9/94. The rest of the motion was turned down.