Rapporteur
Пламен Киров
Author of request
56 народни представители от 41-вото Народно събрание

Purpose of the request

Установяване на противоконституционност и несъответствие с общопризнатите норми на международното право и с международните договори, по които България е страна, на разпоредби от Закона за дипломатическата служба, както и на целия Закон за изменение и допълнение на Закона за дипломатическата служба, с който са изменени атакуваните разпоредби (обн., ДВ, бр. 69 от 8 септември 2011 г.)

Adminissibility resolution:
Dissenting opinion on a decision:

Resolution - 11

The Diplomatic Service is a specialist public administration under the jurisdiction of the executive power whose principal is the Council of Ministers. The contested provision of the Diplomatic Service Act (ZDS) is anti-constitutional as it contravenes Articles 105(2) and 92(1) of the Constitution. This is so because the Diplomatic Service does not independently govern, plan, coordinate and implement foreign policy but only carries out the political decisions made by the public institutions and bodies established by Constitution in the foreign policy domain. More specifically, it implements the decisions adopted by the Council of Ministers and facilitates the President of the Republic who represents Bulgaria in international relations. The organisational and functional principles underlying the Diplomatic Service, including the criteria for the appointment of professional diplomats and non-diplomatic staff, is to be decided by the legislature. Hence, the enacted amendments to the Diplomatic Service Act are not-anti-constitutional. The appointment and dismissal of ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotentiary and officials representing Bulgaria in international organisations is a shared responsibility of the President and the Council of Ministers. Hence it follows that a dispute arising between them in respect of the competence concerned may not be settled by an order terminating the mandates of the officials concerned issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs as this would be tantamount to dismissal without a dedicated Presidential decree. Hence the contested provision laid down in the Diplomatic Service Act, which envisages a possibility to do so, is anti-constitutional as it detracts from the sovereign powers vested in the Head of State. The provisions introducing a ban on a certain category of persons to hold senior offices in the Diplomatic Service or the dismissal or demotion of diplomats who are former collaborators of the secret services of the totalitarian communist regime are anti-constitutional on the grounds of being discriminatory. Hence they contravene Article 6(2) of the Constitution.