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

8. DECISION No.8 OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1994 ON CC No. 9/94

Motion for establishing the unconstitutionality of Art. 16, Para.1 of the Judiciary Act and of ] 8 and 11 of its Transitional and Concluding Provisions (DV, No. 59 of July 22, 1994).
The Constitutional Court ruled that Art. 16. Para. 1 of the Judiciary Act is not unconstitutional. The requirement that the members of the Supreme Judicial Council should have special legal practical experience (as judges, procecutors, examining magistrates or researchers in law) specifies on a constitutional basis the requirement for high professionalism. Art. 6, Para. 2 of the C. specifies in detail the social grounds for non-restriction of rights. Professionalism is not mentioned there and requirements for relevant professional qualities for some posts and restrictions where they are lacking cannot be ruled out.
The Constitutional Court held that ] 8 and 11 of the Transitional and Concluding Provisions of the Judiciary Act are unconstitutional. ]8 fails to recognise the irreplaceability established by Art. 129. Para. 3 of the C. of incumbent judges and prosecutors who do not meet the new requirements set forth in the Judiciary Act concerning the duration of their general and specialised legal service. It was held that the Supreme Judicial Council is not a body with a term-of-office status. Only individual members of the Supreme Judicial Council can be dismissed prior to the expiration of their term of office, whereas no grounds for early dissolution of the Council are envisaged. Termination of its activities by a law is inadmissible even in the event of altered requirements to its elected members. As a body it can be dissolved only by a constitutional provision.