Ruling No. 15 of 12 December 2024 on Constitutional Case No. 31/2024
Referring Authority and Subject Matter of the Case
The case was initiated upon a request by a panel of the Sofia District Court. The subject of the case concerns the constitutionality of Article 130, paragraph 2, in the part “as first instance,” and Article 133, paragraph 2, second sentence of the Bar Act. The first of the cited provisions states that the decisions of the Supreme Disciplinary Tribunal as first instance shall be subject to appeal through the Supreme Disciplinary Tribunal before the Supreme Court of Cassation. According to the second provision, “Fines shall be collected to the benefit of the Bar Association.” In the request, the main arguments for unconstitutionality are based on alleged contradictions with Article 4, paragraph 1 (containing the principle of the rule of law) and Article 117, paragraph 2 (The judiciary shall be independent, and judicial power shall be vested primarily in the court […]) of the Constitution.
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning
The active legitimation of the referring subjects (court or judicial panel) within the meaning of Article 150, paragraph 2 of the Constitution contains an additional admissibility criterion. This entails the requirement that the contested provision be applicable to the specific case pending before it, and that, without the Constitutional Court’s response to the submitted question, the referring court would be unable to perform its judicial function in a manner consistent with the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court has consistently held that “the question of the constitutionality of the law applicable to the pending case, regardless of the model of constitutional adjudication, always has a preliminary character. Its submission would be purposeless if the answer has no effect on the legal dispute for which the Court has been seised.”
In the present case, the panel of the Sofia District Court is examining an order-for-payment proceeding. This proceeding is characterized by the fact that it does not address the existence of the claim, but rather checks for the presence of formal criteria established in Article 411, paragraph 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the event of a dispute, the debtor against whom an order for immediate enforcement has been issued may file an objection, upon which the creditor must bring an action to establish the claim. Only in such proceedings would the contested provisions be applicable. From the case file, it is evident that in both private civil cases the decisions of the first-instance disciplinary tribunal have become final as they were not appealed. Therefore, the challenged provisions are inapplicable.
Grounds for the Ruling and Disposition
Pursuant to Article 149, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Constitution (the authority to rule on requests to establish the unconstitutionality of laws), the Constitutional Court dismisses as inadmissible the request to establish the unconstitutionality of Article 130, paragraph 2, in the part “as first instance,” and Article 133, paragraph 2, second sentence of the Bar Act.
Председател: Павлина Панова