DECISION No 3 of 5 April 2005 on Constitutional Case No 2/2005
The Chief Prosecutor asked for an interpretation of Art. 150, para 1 of the Constitution regarding the structures by which the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court can exercise their power of approaching the Constitutional Court and challenged the constitutionality of Art. 84, para 1, subpara 2, sentence 2 and Art. 95, para 3, sentence 2 of the Law on the Judiciary.
The Constitutional Court analyzed the content of Art. 119, para 1, Art. 124 and Art. 125 of the Constitution providing for the powers of the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court. Also the Constitutional Court took into consideration Art. 133 of the Constitution reading that the organization and activities of the courts shall be established by a law. Following a discussion of these provisions the Constitutional Court concluded that they refer not to the supreme courts as a body of all the justices but to the courts’ structural arms. In view of that the Constitutional Court ruled that the empowered body in Art. 150, para 1 of the Constitution could be the plenum of the respective supreme court including all the justices from this court or the general meeting of any of the panels that are divisions of the supreme courts in which only justices who are members of the panel are included. However, the Constitutional Court excluded the individual panels having concluded that Art. 150, para 2 of the Constitution makes it binding on them to refer a matter to the Constitutional Court whenever, during the proceedings on a case, they find a discrepancy between a law and the Constitution. In conclusion the Constitutional Court gave a binding interpretation of Art. 150, para 1 of the Constitution in the sense that the plenums of the Supreme Court of Cassation and of the Supreme Administrative Court of which all their justices are members as are the general meetings of their panels, have the power to approach the Constitutional Court on the basis of this provision.
With this interpretation the Constitutional Court ruled that the two challenged provisions were not in contravention to the Constitution. These provisions read that the general meetings of the respective panels shall be free to decide to approach the Constitutional Court in the procedure of Art. 150, para 1 of the Constitution. This will not violate the Constitution as just like the plenums, the general meetings of the panels have the power to refer matters to the Constitutional Court as per Art. 150, para 1 of the Constitution.
Председател: Неделчо Беронов