Decision

DECISION No 6 of 12 May 2005 on Constitutional Case No 3/2005

         Forty-eight Members of the 39^th National Assembly challenged § 1, § 4 and § 5, and thus the whole Law on the Amendment to the Law on the Marine Spaces, Inland Waterways and Ports of the Republic of Bulgaria.

         The Constitutional Court turned down the challenge.

         1. Under two of the provisions challenged the Minister of Foreign Affairs is free to give permission to an ally’s naval ship to enter the internal sea waters and to visit the open ports and roadsteads in the event of alliance-related non-military operations; the Minister is free to give permission to the naval ships of the Danubian countries to visit the Bulgarian ports and roadsteads on the river Danube.

         The Constitutional Court quoted its previous interpretative decisions which rule that the power of the National Assembly to approve the deployment of foreign troops on the territory of the country or their crossing that territory can be transferred to other State institutions if the crossing and the deployment are not of a military or military-political nature. This is so because the crossing won’t threaten, openly or potentially, the country’s sovereignty, security, independence and territorial integrity – all of them values that fall within the exclusive competence of the National Assembly.

         The Constitutional Court found the provisions challenged to be fully relatable to the said binding interpretation. Moreover, the power that is given to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is determined, among other things, by the fulfillment of alliance-related obligations under an international treaty that has been ratified, promulgated and become effective for the Republic of Bulgaria, like the North Atlantic Treaty. The provisions ensure the Constitution-compliant facilitation of the permission procedure. The coordination of the permission with the Minister of Defense, the Minister of Interior and the Minister of Transport and Communications and the subsequent notification of the Council of Ministers plus the non-military nature of the visit of the ally’s naval ship are cumulatively listed conditions in the law and only when all these conditions are met the provision is not in contradiction to the Constitution.

         Further, it was made clear that the provisions discussed concern an ally’s naval ship that is not synonymous with the term “foreign troops” as used in the Constitution text, which is claimed to be disrespected.

         2. A third piece of legislation defines an “ally’s ship” which is said to be a broader word that covers not just ships sailing under the flag of the NATO member countries. The Constitutional Court recalled specifically its definition of the troops of a political or military alliance and of the member countries of such an alliance or of ally states under an international treaty – of a political or military nature – ratified, promulgated and effective for the Republic of Bulgaria, and concluded that these are not foreign troops in the meaning of Art. 84, item 11 of the Constitution. In that sense the definition in the law is not dissonant with the Constitution.

Председател: Неделчо Беронов