Ruling No. 6 of 27 June 2024 on Constitutional Case No. 19/2024
Referring Authority and Subject Matter of the Case
The case was initiated upon a request submitted by a panel of the Sofia City Court seeking the establishment of the unconstitutionality of Article 164, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the grounds of an alleged conflict with Article 30, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Constitution. The petitioner maintains that it “is faced with a situation in which the personal search of the defendants [in the criminal case of a general nature pending before the Sofia City Court] was carried out without prior judicial authorisation - the basis for this being their arrest, which had been planned in advance.” It is argued that this personal search in the specific criminal case was conducted in violation of Article 30, paragraph 2, third proposition, in conjunction with paragraph 1 of the Constitution, because under the statutory hypothesis of Article 164, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code (which was applied during the pre-trial proceedings) there is “no statutory requirement for prior judicial authorisation.”
Summary of the Court’s Reasoning
A mandatory requirement for the admissibility of a request submitted pursuant to Article 150, paragraph 2 of the Constitution is that the statutory provision contested before the Constitutional Court be relevant to the outcome of the specific judicial proceedings, i.e., to the resolution of the particular legal dispute or case. In its case law, the Court has clarified what is to be understood by “applicable law” - namely, any statutory provision that is in force and objectively capable of being applied as a source of law in the concrete case on which the court seizing the constitutional jurisdiction must rule. The Court has also established consistent jurisprudence to the effect that a judicial panel may request a finding of unconstitutionality only with respect to statutory provisions that are directly related to the subject matter of the dispute pending before it. A ruling of the constitutional jurisdiction is meaningful only if it can be taken into account by the referring court, and the issue of the constitutionality of the law applicable to the pending case would have no justification to be raised and decided if the answer thereto would have no effect on the resolution of the legal dispute prompting the referral to the Constitutional Court. Moreover, the Constitutional Court is not bound by the referring court’s assessment of the applicable law, because such an assessment presupposes the Constitutional Court’s own jurisdiction to rule on the request made. Referring a question to the Constitutional Court must not be merely an option for the referring court but a necessity stemming from the specific case - meaning that without an answer to the constitutional question posed, the court would be unable to exercise its judicial function in conformity with the Constitution. It is the duty of the referring court to convincingly substantiate the existence of such necessity, which it has failed to do in the present case. The referring court cannot expect the Constitutional Court to rule on matters falling within the competence of the referring authority itself, as is the situation here.
Grounds for the Ruling and Disposition
Pursuant to Article 13 (the Constitutional Court itself determines whether the question referred to it falls within its jurisdiction) and Article 19 (the Court rules on the admissibility of the request) of the Constitutional Court Act, the Constitutional Court dismisses the request submitted by a panel of the Sofia City Court seeking the establishment of the unconstitutionality of Article 164, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Председател: Павлина Панова