The April 2 law for which the Government assumed responsibility was adopted with violations of the constitutional provisions and runs counter to Articles 6 and 1061 of the Constitution, said the Constitutional Court (CC), which published the arguments for its judgment by which the given law was declared unconstitutional, IPN reports. The Court reiterated that the assumption of responsibility by the Government cannot prevent Parliament from fulfilled its role of the only lawmaking authority as the given procedure should take place before the legislature. Acceptation of the idea that the executive can discretionarily accept responsibility for a bill anyway and in any conditions would be equal to the transformation of this authority into a public lawmaking authority competing with Parliament.
The CC noted the constitutional provisions stipulate four stages of the procedure for assuming responsibility by the Government. At the first stage, the executive should adopt a decision by which it assumes responsibility for a bill. At the second stage, the Government’s representative should present the bill in front of Parliament. At the third stage, a no-confidence motion can be filed, while for the fourth stage the Constitution envisions two scenarios, when a no-confidence motion is submitted and when it is not.
On the one hand, the Government launched the procedure for assuming responsibility for the bill. This was registered with the Parliament’s Secretariat. When the legislative body was convoked, the Prime Minister was in the Parliament’s assembly hall and was ready to present the bill to the MPs. This way, the Government took all the steps needed for the bill to be presented to the MPs. On the other hand, even if Parliament was convoked, it wasn’t possible to present the bill as the quorum was not present.
The law was considered adopted by Parliament even if the plenary sitting failed. The Court reiterated that the three-day period starts from the day the bill is presented in Parliament and a no-confidence motion can be submitted in the period. Consequently, the legislature could have come together for a new plenary sitting for the Government to present the bill. The absence of a quorum represents a failed attempt by the Government to assume responsibility for a bill before Parliament.
The Court held that the procedure for assuming responsibility does not exclude and cannot be used to exclude parliamentary control by initiating a no-confidence motion. The possibility of submitting a no-confidence motion is the main instrument for exercising parliamentary control when the Government assumes responsibility, which Parliament cannot abandon by not offering Government the possibly of assuming responsibility in a plenary sitting.
The CC noted that authors’ arguments refer to the violation of the procedure for assuming responsibility by the Government for the April 2 law. These arguments apply not only to the challenged provisions, but also to the whole law as an alleged violation of the procedure for assuming responsibility produces effects on the whole law. Consequently, the Court considered it necessary to examine the constitutionality of the law on the whole.
The judgment is definitive and cannot be appealed. It takes effect when it is passed and is published in the Official Gazette.
