DECISION No 9 OF 29 SEPTEMBER 2005 ON CONSTITUTIONAL CASE No 6/2005
Forty-nine Members of the 39th National Assembly challenged the constitutionality of a specific law provision, which, it was claimed, was not put up to vote in Parliament but nonetheless passed.
The Constitutional Court dismissed the case on the basis of facts that the Court believed were firm, namely: the President returned the law on the water supply and sewerage after its passage but before its promulgation in order to be reconsidered by Parliament. The motives with which the law was returned pertain to § 6, item 3 of the Transitional and Concluding Provisions. The law returned did not get the required majority vote in Parliament. For that reason the text challenged was discussed and put to vote at the next session when it was passed by a simple majority vote together with another provision, which put off the entry into force for a later date.
Having considered that the Court ruled that § 6, item 3 of the Transitional and Concluding Provisions was voted in a right and proper way and in compliance with the procedure required by Art. 88 and Art. 101 of the Constitution and at the same time made a differentiation between Art. 88, para 1 and Art. 101, para 2 of the Constitution. On the differentiation the Court ruled that the provisions pertain to different phases of the legislating process and that in the case in question there was no need to vote the text twice and that the passage of this text together with § 7, item 2 is in harmony with the choice of the Members of Parliament when they re-voted the law that the President had returned.
Председател: Неделчо Беронов