Decision No. 12/2025 on Constitutional Case No. 7/2025
Referring Authority and Subject Matter of the Case
The case was initiated upon a request by the Administrative Court Sofia-City, 20th Cassation Panel, seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 79b, paragraph 2 of the Administrative Offences and Penalties Act. The contested provision establishes the non-appealability of administrative acts where the pecuniary sanction has been voluntarily paid by the offender within 14 days. If that time limit is observed, the penalty is reduced to 80 per cent. According to the referring court, the regulation is contrary to the principle of the rule of law due to defects in the legislative process. It is further alleged that it infringes the right of defence, the principle of equality before the law, and, in certain cases, the right to freely choose a profession and place of work.
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning
The Constitutional Court emphasises that the contested provision regulates a legal option that depends entirely on the discretion of the person identified in the penalty order as having committed the offence. This discretion may be exercised within a reasonable period (14 days, corresponding to the time limit for lodging an appeal) and freely, including after obtaining legal advice, should the person deem it necessary. For that reason, there is no interference with the right of defence, since the opportunity to exercise that right remains available. Whether the offender chooses to avail himself or herself of it is a matter of choice, not obligation.
The allegation of a flawed legislative process, due to an “absence of reasons accompanying the draft introducing Article 79b of the Administrative Offences and Penalties Act,” likewise cannot be upheld. The legislature provided reasons for the entire amendment of the Act and articulated clear objectives. In its established case-law, the Constitutional Court has consistently held that there is no obligation to provide specific reasoning for each individual provision of a draft law.
Finally, the Court finds that no unequal treatment arises, since the provision applies to all legal subjects. Nor is the right to work affected, as the regulation relates solely to the penalty of a fine.
Grounds for the Ruling and Disposition
Pursuant to Article 149, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Constitution (empowering the Court to rule on requests for the establishment of the unconstitutionality of laws), the Constitutional Court rejects the request for a declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 79b, paragraph 2 of the Administrative Offences and Penalties Act.
The decision is signed with a dissenting opinion by two judges.