DECISION No. 4 OF MAY 17, 1995 ON CC No. 2/95
Motion by a group of Members of Parliament challenging the constitutionality of the following articles of the Standing Orders of Parliament (DV, No. 13 of February 3, 1995): Art. 18 para 2 subpara 3; Art. 18 para 4; Art. 27 para 2 sentence 2; Art. 38 paras 2 and 3; Art. 39 para 2; Art. 54 para 2; Art. 59 para 3; Art. 63 para 2; Art. 75 paras 2 and 3 sentence 2; Art. 79 para 2 concerning the expression "basic"; Art. 105 paras 9, 10 and 11; Art. 106 and Clause 7 of the Transitional and Concluding Provisions of the Standing Orders.
On Art. 18 para 2 subpara 3 and Art. 106 of the Standing Orders. The texts provide for the Parliamentary Ethic Committee to establish (Art. 106 of the Standing Orders) and discuss (Art. 18 para 2 subpara 3 of the Standing Orders) cases of incompatibility regarding elected MPs - Art. 72 para 1 subpara 3 of the C.
The Constitutional Court ruled downs the challenge of constitutionality and ruled it is within the powers of the Ethic Committee to deal with issues related to the MP status. This has to guard the status and Parliament as an institution. That power of the Parliamentary Ethic Committee does not appropriate functions of the Constitutional Court which alone can rule on incompatibility under Art. 72 para 2 when duly approached.
On Art. 14 para 4 of the Standing Orders providing for a power of the Foreign Policy Committee to interview applicant ambassadors and give opinion before their approval by the Council of Ministers. The Constitutional Court ruled the provision was anticonstitutional and in contravention to the Constitution-sanctioned appointment procedure for the heads of diplomatic missions of the Republic of Bulgaria. Art. 98 para 6 of the C. reads that these shall be appointed by the President of the Republic on a motion from the Council of Ministers.
On Art. 27 para 2 sentence 2 of the Standing Orders providing for procedural requirements to the select committees sessions. The Constitutional Court ruled that the text was not anticonstitutional as there was no contradiction with a specific constitutional text or constitutional principle.
On Art. 38 paras 2 and 3 of the Standing Orders. The Constitutional Court ruled that Art. 38 para 2 of the Standing Orders providing that a live broadcast of a National Assembly session by the Bulgarian National Television shall require a decision of the National Assembly is not in contravention to the C. The refusal of the National Assembly of broadcasting some sessions by the television does not infringe on the right to seek, obtain and disseminate information laid down in Art. 41 para 1 of the C. as all plenary sessions of the National Assembly are broadcast by the Bulgarian National Radio completely using a frequency that covers the whole country.
On Art. 38 para 3 of the Standing Orders providing that coverage of the sessions of the National Assembly select committees shall be made by the Bulgarian National Television, the Bulgarian National Radio and the Bulgarian News Agency on judgment of the committees, the Constitutional Court ruled the provision was anticonstitutional. It curtails the right of every citizen to seek, obtain and disseminate information according to Art. 41 para 1 of the C.
On Art. 39 para 2 and Art. 54 para 2 of the Standing Orders regulating the technical aspects of checking the quorum in the National Assembly plenary hall, the voting procedures, breaks or adjournment of sessions and the description of a ballot by show of hands. The Constitutional Court ruled these rules were a technical procedure that does not infringe on a text of the C., therefore the challenge of their constitutionality is unfounded.
On Art. 59 para 3 of the Standing Orders providing that with a computer teller it is solely the leadership of each parliamentary group that can ask for a print-out. The Constitutional Court ruled the text challenged was not anticonstitutional nor did it violate Art. 41 para 1 of the C. There is no obstacle for the media to provide the public with information from any parliamentary group about any voting.
On Art. 63 para 2 of the Standing Orders providing that the mover of a bill shall give opinion on the enforcement-related costs. The Constitutional Court ruled the text was not anticonstitutional. It is a requirement that is not absolutely compulsory. The lack of opinion about the bill-related costs is not a constitutional barrier to the submission of the bill to the National Assembly nor shall it curtail an MP's constitutional right to move bills.
On Art. 75 para 2 and para 3 sentence 2 of the Standing Orders providing an appropriate procedure in the initiation of a constitutional case to which the National Assembly is a party. The Constitutional Court ruled the texts were not anticonstitutional as they provide for an internal procedure of National Assembly opinion making on definite constitutional cases. The procedure does not infringe or usurp powers of the Constitutional Court to hear and rule on the cases.
On Art. 79 para 2 of the Standing Orders regarding the expression "basic". The text provides that interpellations by Members of Parliament to persons and institutions shall pertain only to basic aspects of their activity. The Constitutional Court ruled the text was not anticonstitutional as it guarantees the efficient work of Parliament. In addition to interpellations Members of Parliament are free to choose the form of asking a relevant question. A requirement is not envisaged for the form of such a question.
On Art. 105 para 9 of the Standing Orders according to which the National Assembly shall be free to revoke a warrant that it has given for the detention of a Member of Parliament. The Constitutional Court ruled the text was not anticonstitutional. The warrant to detain a Member of Parliament is an exclusive prerogative of the National Assembly and does not depend on the prerogatives of the Judiciary. This shall be sanctioned by a National Assembly decision falling into the group of revocable acts.
On Art. 105 para 10 of the Standing Orders by virtue of which on a motion from the Parliamentary Ethic Committee the National Assembly shall be free to withdraw a warrant to prosecute a Member of Parliament and thus suspend action. The Constitutional Court ruled the provision was anticonstitutional. It contravenes the fundamental constitutional principle of the separation of powers - Art. 8 and Art. 117 para 2 of the C. Once the National Assembly has responded to the Chief Prosecutor's plea to strip a Member of Parliament of his or her immunity, it shall not interfere with the Investigation, Prosecution or the Court.
On Art. 105 para 1 of the Standing Orders providing for the National Assembly to give a warrant to prosecute a Member of Parliament even when prosecution started before his or her election. The Constitutional Court ruled the text was not in contravention to the C. Anyone can be elected Member of Parliament even when prosecuted. The provision of immunity under Art. 70 of the C. requires a warrant from the National Assembly in order to continue the prosecution.
On Clause 7 of the Transitional and Concluding Provisions of the Standing Orders providing for the Members of Parliament to rid of the reasons of incompatibility within three months of the Standing Orders' entry into force. The Constitutional Court ruled the provision to be anticonstitutional. Art. 68 para 1 of the C. reads that Members of Parliament shall not occupy another state post nor shall they engage in any other activity which the law defines as incompatible with the status of the Member of Parliament. Members of Parliament acquire this status immediately after election whence the requirements of incompatibility starts to apply.
