Decision No. 7 of 16 May 2024 on Constitutional Case No. 14/2023
Referring Authority and Subject Matter of the Case
The case was initiated upon a request by the President of the Republic of Bulgaria. The subject matter of the case is the constitutionality of §§1-5 of the Act on Amendments and Supplements to the Act on the Control of the Implementation of Restrictive Measures in View of Russia’s Actions Destabilising the Situation in Ukraine (promulgated in SG No. 67 of 04 August 2023), and, following the entry into force of the Act, of §§2 and 3 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Act on the Control of the Implementation of Restrictive Measures in View of Russia’s Actions Destabilising the Situation in Ukraine. In the request, the applicant presents arguments regarding the alleged unconstitutionality of the contested provisions, which can be relatively classified into two groups: those asserting a conflict with the principle of the rule of law established in Article 4, paragraph 1, and those concerning inconsistency with Article 11, paragraph 1 (the principle of political pluralism) of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria.
By a ruling dated 10 October 2023, the Constitutional Court admitted for consideration on the merits the request of the President of the Republic of Bulgaria to establish the unconstitutionality of §2, paragraph 1 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Act on the Control of the Implementation of Restrictive Measures. According to this provision, concessions granted under the Concessions Act prior to the entry into force of this Act for carrying out activities in strategic facilities of importance for national security, relating to crude oil and petroleum products derived from crude oil originating in or exported from Russia, to persons falling within the scope of Article 5k of Regulation (EU) No. 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, as amended, shall be terminated within one week. Within two weeks of the revocation of the concession, the Ministry of Transport and Communications shall assume operational management of the facilities.
By the same ruling, the Constitutional Court dismissed the request to establish the unconstitutionality of §2, paragraph 2 and §3 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Act on the Control of the Implementation of Restrictive Measures and terminated the constitutional proceedings in this part.
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning
The Court does not share the applicant’s assertion that the contested provision creates “legal uncertainty in determining the period within which ‘the concessions are to be revoked’,” nor that, due to the imprecise terminology and the manner of termination of the concession agreements, it is inconsistent with legal predictability in violation of the principle of the rule of law established in Article 4 of the Constitution. The Court finds the request in this part to be unfounded. The unclear and sometimes incorrect (imperfect, ambiguous) expressions, as present in this case, can be resolved through interpretation, which is within the competence - both a right and an obligation - of every law-enforcing authority, including executive bodies.
The data from the stenographic record of the National Assembly session held on 21 July 2023 do not confirm that the decision of the National Assembly to conduct the second vote on the contested statutory provisions during the same session in which the first vote was held constitutes an abuse of the guaranteed opportunity of Members of Parliament to submit proposals on the content of bills between the two votes, even when both votes take place in a single session. Members of Parliament expressed a desire to make proposals on specific provisions of the bill during the second vote, and such opportunity was provided to them - proposals were made and each was put to a vote. For this reason, the Constitutional Court finds unfounded the applicant’s argument that §2, paragraph 1 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Act on the Control of the Implementation of Restrictive Measures was adopted in derogation of the principle of political pluralism established in Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Constitution.
Grounds for the Ruling and Disposition
Pursuant to Article 149, paragraph 1, item 2 of the Constitution (competence to rule on requests for establishing the unconstitutionality of laws), the Constitutional Court rejects the request to establish the unconstitutionality of §2, paragraph 1 of the Transitional and Final Provisions of the Act on the Control of the Implementation of Restrictive Measures in View of Russia’s Actions Destabilising the Situation in Ukraine.
Председател: Павлина Панова