Decision No. 4 of 13 March 2018 on Constitutional Case No. 14/2017
Referring Authority and Subject Matter of the Case
The case was initiated upon a request submitted by a group of 66 Members of Parliament from the Forty-Fourth National Assembly. The subject matter of the case concerns the constitutionality of Article 6, paragraph 1, Section II, item 1.2, “Subsidies and Other Transfers”, of the State Budget Act of the Republic of Bulgaria for 2018. The request primarily argues that the provision is unconstitutional due to its alleged conflict with Article 88, paragraph 1 of the Constitution. In addition, it is claimed that the procedure under Article 71, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure of the National Assembly (RPNA) was not observed, thereby also violating the principle of the rule of law enshrined in Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Constitution.
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning
According to the Constitutional Court, the requirement under Article 88, paragraph 1 of the Constitution that laws be adopted in two votes does not restrict the legislative body from remedying inconsistencies between legal provisions during the ongoing parliamentary debates at the second reading, up until the completion of the procedure for adopting the submitted bill. It would be contrary to the rationale of the constitutional provisions in such cases to rely on a new legislative initiative only after the subsequent promulgation of the law.
The Constitutional Court finds that, through the described mechanism of conducting the legislative process, no constitutional requirements have been violated, in particular the rule under Article 88, paragraph 1 of the Constitution concerning the adoption of laws in two readings. It may only be added that upholding the request, apart from inevitably creating the need to overcome a regulatory situation incompatible with the principle of the rule of law under Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, would not automatically lead to the socially beneficial effect sought by the applicant, because the allocation of subsidies for religious denominations under Annex No. 1, which constitutes an integral part of the law by virtue of Article 6, paragraph 4, has not been challenged.
The argument raised in the request regarding non-compliance with the parliamentary procedure established in the RPNA is also unfounded. On the one hand, the mere postponement of the second vote on an individual statutory provision to a subsequent parliamentary sitting does not, in itself, constitute a violation of the Constitution. On the other hand, although in the present case the thesis of a violation of Article 71, paragraph 2 of the RPNA is debatable, there is no valid reason for the Constitutional Court to depart from its established case-law, consistently reflected in a number of its judgments, that non-compliance with the rules of the RPNA cannot be equated with a constitutional violation.
Grounds for the Ruling and Disposition
Pursuant to Article 149, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Constitution (the competence to rule on requests for a declaration of unconstitutionality of laws), the Constitutional Court rejects the request submitted by a group of 66 Members of Parliament from the Forty-Fourth National Assembly seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 6, paragraph 1, Section II, item 1.2, “Subsidies and Other Transfers”, of the State Budget Act of the Republic of Bulgaria for 2018.