Resolution No. 3 of 10 June 2025 on Constitutional Case No. 8/2025
Referring Authority and Subject Matter of the Case
The case was initiated upon a request by the President of the Republic of Bulgaria. Its subject matter concerns the provision of a binding interpretation of Article 77, paragraph 1, items 1 and 2, and Article 84, item 5, in conjunction with Article 1, paragraph 2, Article 10, and Article 42, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Constitution, as well as the declaration of nullity of Order No. 51-550-01-301/13 May 2025 issued by the Chairperson of the National Assembly.
The requested interpretation of the aforementioned constitutional provisions relates to the following questions: 1. Is the National Assembly obliged to deliberate and decide on a proposal for holding a national referendum submitted by a constitutional body empowered by law?; 2. Within the scope of his or her constitutional powers, does the Chairperson of the National Assembly have the competence to assess the requirements under which it is permissible to hold a national referendum and to reject a proposal submitted by a constitutional body empowered by law?
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning
In the present case, where the legal issue is derived from established inconsistent procedural conduct on the part of the Chairperson of the Parliament in relation to a proposal submitted by the President for the holding of a national referendum, the request, as regards the first interpretative question formulated by the applicant, must be dismissed as inadmissible. The question whether the National Assembly is obliged to deliberate and decide on a proposal for holding a national referendum submitted by a subject empowered by law to refer such a proposal has not been the subject of contradictory resolution by the Parliament itself. Moreover, the assessment of whether the Chairperson of Parliament may, by means of a unilateral act, prevent the National Assembly from exercising its constitutional competence is not dependent on the manner in which the national representative body is to proceed once seized.
The Constitutional Court finds the second interpretative question formulated by the President admissible, but requiring clarification, namely that the wording “constitutional body empowered by law” be replaced by “subject empowered by law.” This revision accurately reflects the legal issue raised, since Article 10 of the Direct Participation of Citizens in State Power and Local Self-Government Act empowers not only constitutional bodies (the President and the Council of Ministers), but also other subjects (no fewer than one-fifth of the municipal councils and no fewer than 200,000 citizens) to refer to the National Assembly a proposal for holding a national referendum. There is no basis to differentiate among the authorized subjects with regard to the legal effect of such a proposal, and in particular from the perspective of the powers of the Chairperson of Parliament upon receipt thereof.
At the same time, the request for interpretation should be admitted only with regard to those constitutional provisions that directly relate to the constitutional legal issue raised, namely the relationship between the powers of the National Assembly and those of its Chairperson - Article 77, paragraph 1, items 1 and 2, and Article 84, item 5 of the Constitution. The remaining constitutional provisions cited in the request as being “in conjunction” therewith do not pertain to that specific issue.
As regards the request, pursuant to Article 22, paragraph 3 of the Constitutional Court Act, to declare null and void Order No. 51-550-01-301/13 May 2025 of the Chairperson of the National Assembly, the Court finds it inadmissible. This power of the Constitutional Court is not autonomous in character, as it does not fall within the expressly enumerated competences of the Constitutional Court under Article 149, paragraph 1 of the Constitution.
Grounds for the Ruling and Disposition
Pursuant to Article 149, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Constitution (power to provide binding interpretations of the Constitution) and Article 19 of the Constitutional Court Act (the Court shall rule on the admissibility of the request), the Constitutional Court admits for consideration on the merits the request of the President of the Republic of Bulgaria for a binding interpretation of Article 77, paragraph 1, items 1 and 2, and Article 84, item 5 of the Constitution, in connection with the following question: Does the Chairperson of the National Assembly, within the scope of his or her constitutional powers, have the competence to assess the requirements under which the holding of a national referendum is permissible, by rejecting a proposal submitted by a subject empowered by law?
The Court dismisses as inadmissible the remainder of the request of the President of the Republic of Bulgaria, namely: 1) the request for interpretation of Article 1, paragraph 2, Article 10, and Article 42, paragraphs 1 and 2, in their conjunction with Article 77, paragraph 1, items 1 and 2, and Article 84, item 5 of the Constitution; 2) the request for a binding interpretation of Article 77, paragraph 1, items 1 and 2, and Article 84, item 5, in conjunction with Article 1, paragraph 2, Article 10, and Article 42, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Constitution, with regard to the question: Is the National Assembly obliged to deliberate and decide on a proposal for holding a national referendum submitted by a constitutional body empowered by law?; 3) the request to declare null and void Order No. 51-550-01-301/13 May 2025 of the Chairperson of the National Assembly. The proceedings are terminated in that part.
The resolution is signed with dissenting opinions by five judges.
Председател: Павлина Панова