Resolution No. 7 of 23 October 2025 on Constitutional Case No. 11/2025
Referring Authority and Subject Matter of the Case
The case was initiated upon a request by the Third Panel of the Administrative Court - Blagoevgrad in connection with Administrative Case No. 603/2025 pending before it. The subject matter of the case concerns the constitutionality of Article 396, paragraph 1, first sentence of the Judicial System Act, according to which an expert witness shall be appointed by the authority assigning the expert examination from the relevant list of specialists approved as expert witnesses. The request for establishing unconstitutionality is substantiated by the applicant with allegations of a “potential conflict” with the constitutional requirements of independence, impartiality, and foreseeability of justice
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning
A mandatory condition for the admissibility of a request based on Article 150, paragraph 2 of the Constitution is that the challenged statutory provision be “in force and objectively capable of application as a source of law in the specific case in respect of which the court referring the matter to the constitutional jurisdiction is required to rule” (Ruling No. 6/2024 on Constitutional Case No. 19/2024). This includes the requirement that the contested provision bear a direct relevance to the subject matter of the legal dispute pending before the referring court. The Court has consistently held that its ruling “is meaningful only if it can be taken into account by the jurisdiction that has referred the matter, and there would be no reason to raise and decide the question of the constitutionality of the law applicable to the pending case if the answer thereto would have no effect on the resolution of the legal dispute in connection with which the Constitutional Court has been seized” (Ruling No. 6/2024 on Constitutional Case No. 19/2024).
The provision of Article 396, paragraph 1, first sentence of the Judicial System Act, being of an organizational nature, is not, in itself, objectively capable of application as a source of law in the specific case in the sense asserted by the applicant. The appointment of expert witnesses in individual cases is governed by the procedural laws - Article 195 of the Civil Procedure Code, which is also applicable in judicial proceedings under the Administrative Procedure Code, and Articles 144 et seq. of the Criminal Procedure Code, which are likewise applicable in judicial proceedings under the Administrative Offences and Sanctions Act. The contested regulation in the organizational Judicial System Act does not govern the concrete activity of judicial authorities in appointing expert witnesses; rather, it provides a non-mandatory reference to the relevant list of specialists approved as expert witnesses. Separately, it should be noted that the referring court has not taken into account the legal nature of the activity of judicial authorities in appointing expert witnesses in a particular case, and of the activity related to the approval of the lists of expert witnesses.
The challenge to the absence of criteria for the appointment of expert witnesses laid down in Article 396, paragraph 1, first sentence of the Judicial System Act fails to take into account that “pursuant to Article 62, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, legislative power is exercised solely by the National Assembly. The Constitutional Court is not competent to substitute the will of the legislature with its own decision, nor to instruct the National Assembly as to what legal regulation it should enact. To admit for consideration on the merits, on the basis of Article 149, paragraph 1, item 2 in conjunction with Article 150, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, a request alleging a lack of necessary legal regulation would mean that the Court exceeds the limits of its powers within the framework of incidental normative control and transforms itself into a positive legislator” (Ruling No. 2/2024 on Constitutional Case No. 8/2024 and Ruling No. 6/2024 on Constitutional Case No. 19/2024).
The Constitutional Court finds that the request thus submitted cannot achieve the objective laid down in Article 150, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, namely the implementation of effective cooperation between the referring court and the Constitutional Court with a view to resolving the case pending before the court of first instance in accordance with a decision rendered by the constitutional jurisdiction (Ruling No. 7/2024 on Constitutional Case No. 20/2024 and Ruling No. 2/2025 on Constitutional Case No. 3/2025).
Grounds for the Ruling and Disposition
Pursuant to Article 26, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court (“When it determines that a request is inadmissible, the Constitutional Court shall dismiss the request by a reasoned ruling and terminate the proceedings. In such a case, the request shall be returned to its submitter”), the Constitutional Court dismisses the request of the Third Panel of the Administrative Court - Blagoevgrad for the establishment of the unconstitutionality of Article 396, paragraph 1, first sentence of the Judicial System Act.
The resolution is signed with concurring opinions by two judges.
Председател: Павлина Панова