Resolution No. 4 of 12 June 2025 on Constitutional Case No. 2/2025
Referring Authority and Subject Matter of the Case
The case was initiated upon a request by 48 Members of Parliament of the 51st National Assembly for the provision of a binding interpretation of Article 4, Article 8, and Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, with regard to the following question: “Is the duration of the exercise of powers of a state authority, as determined by law, reduced in the event of its removal from office by an act subsequently declared unconstitutional, in light of the provisions of Article 4, Article 8, and Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria?”
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning
The applicant argues that, with Decision No. 15/2024 on Constitutional Case No. 18/2024, the Court declared unconstitutional the decision of the National Assembly for the early termination of the term of office of the Director of the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF), Stanimir Boyanov Mihaylov. During the period between the promulgation of the National Assembly’s decision and the promulgation of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, the Director of the NHIF did not exercise his powers. The applicant points out that the term of office of the NHIF Director is regulated in the Health Insurance Act for a period of five years, and neither the law nor the Constitution regulates the hypothesis of interruption of the term of office of a state body in the event of unconstitutional early dismissal, established by an act of the Constitutional Court. Just as the unlawful inaction of the appointing authority cannot result in an extension of the term of office (Decision No. 1/2024 on Constitutional Case No. 17/2023), so too unlawful action cannot result in a shortening of the term of office of a state authority.
The Constitutional Court’s interpretative power under Article 149, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Constitution is explicitly limited to provisions of the Constitution. It is aimed at clarifying the precise meaning of constitutional provisions and establishing the binding effect of the interpretation given. The Court does not have the authority to interpret provisions of laws, including those establishing public authorities and defining the conditions for the exercise of their powers. The request was made in the context of a specific dismissal of the NHIF Director by an act later declared unconstitutional. The National Health Insurance Fund is not a state authority established by the Constitution but an institution created pursuant to Article 16, paragraph 1 of the Health Insurance Act. The management bodies of any institution are not identified with their personal composition, as that composition is elected or appointed for a specified period to exercise the powers assigned to the bodies. Based on the specific factual circumstances described in the request, the question seeks an answer that would cover all possible scenarios in which decisions of the National Assembly, later declared unconstitutional, have produced legal consequences for the personal composition of various statutory bodies. The duration of the term of office of members of certain public authorities is regulated by the Constitution, while for others it is regulated by the laws establishing them. The Constitutional Court does not have the authority under Article 149, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Constitution to interpret provisions of laws establishing public authorities and regulating the exercise of their powers. There is no uniform legal regulation in legislation concerning the duration of a mandate as a period for exercising powers. The legal consequences of an act declared unconstitutional that terminates a legally established term of office should be regulated by the legislature.
Grounds for the Ruling and Disposition
Pursuant to Article 149, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Constitution (the Constitutional Court provides binding interpretations of the Constitution) and Article 19, paragraph 1 of the Constitutional Court Act (the Court shall rule on the admissibility of the request), the Constitutional Court dismisses the request of 48 Members of the 51st National Assembly for a binding interpretation of Article 4, Article 8, and Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Constitution regarding the question: “Is the duration of the exercise of powers of a state authority, as determined by law, reduced in the event of its removal from office by an act subsequently declared unconstitutional, in light of the provisions of Article 4, Article 8, and Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria?”
The resolution is adopted with one concurring opinion.
Председател: Павлина Панова