Decision No. 2 of 7 February 2017 on Constitutional Case No. 13/2016
Referring Authority and Subject Matter of the Case
The case was initiated upon a request submitted by the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Bulgaria for the issuance of a binding interpretation of the provision of Article 126, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, concerning the content of the requirement that the structure of the prosecution office correspond to the structure of the courts.
The need for interpretation is justified by the existence of different possible understandings of the scope of this requirement - whether it implies full territorial and organisational correspondence between courts and prosecution offices, or whether it should be understood as correspondence based on functional and hierarchical (instance-based) principles. The request is also substantiated by forthcoming changes to the judicial map and the need for these to comply with the Constitution.
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning
The Constitutional Court conducts a historical, systematic, and teleological interpretation of Article 126, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, examining the position of the prosecution office within the system of the judiciary and the intent of the constituent legislator. The analysis of the debates in the Grand National Assembly demonstrates an evolution from an initial understanding of the prosecution as structurally linked to the courts to a concept of the prosecution as enjoying relative institutional autonomy, forming a separate subsystem within the judiciary with specific functions exhaustively enumerated in Article 127 of the Constitution.
The Court emphasizes that the structure of the courts, as outlined in Article 119, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, has constitutional significance and includes only the types of courts listed according to the hierarchical (instance-based) principle in line with the three-instance system of proceedings, with provision also made for specialized military courts. This structure may be altered only through an amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution does not contain rules concerning the territorial organization of the judiciary, which is entrusted to the legislature and to the Supreme Judicial Council within the framework of statutory regulation.
In this context, the requirement for correspondence between the structure of the prosecution office and that of the courts should be understood as correspondence in terms of type and level, rather than as an obligation for full territorial duplication. Such an interpretation would run counter to the functional specificity of the prosecution and would lead to impractical organizational and financial consequences. The Constitutional Court points out that, in a number of instances, the participation of the prosecution in court proceedings is not necessary, and therefore the existence of a territorially corresponding prosecution office is not justified.
The Court also refers to its previous case-law, according to which it is constitutionally permissible for the prosecution to be organized as a single legal entity, as well as for specific structural units to be established in order to ensure the more effective exercise of its functions. The establishment of specialized courts does not automatically require the creation of corresponding specialized prosecution offices; this matter is left to the discretion of the legislature.
Grounds for the Ruling and Disposition
Pursuant to Article 149, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Constitution (the competence to provide binding interpretation of the Constitution), the Constitutional Court holds that the requirement under Article 126, paragraph 1 of the Constitution that the structure of the prosecution office correspond to that of the courts means the mandatory establishment of prosecution offices corresponding, in type and level, to the courts listed in Article 119, paragraph 1 of the Constitution.
This requirement does not entail an obligation for correspondence between the territorial units of the prosecution office and those of the courts.
Specialized prosecution offices may be established by law alongside specialized courts.