Statistical data: 1 May 1996-31 August 1996

Number of decisions taken:
• Decisions on the merits by the plenum of the Court: 2
• Decisions on the merits by panels of the Court: 4
• Number of other decisions by the plenum: 3
• Number of other decisions by panels: 28
• Total number of cases brought to the Court: 220

Important decisions

Identification: SVK-96-2-003
a) Slovakia / b) Constitutional Court / c) Plenum / d) 02.05.1996 / e) PLUS 42/95 / f) Case of conformity between statute and constitution / g) Zbierka zakonov Slovenskej Republiki (Collection of laws of the Slovak Republic), no. 153/1996 Z.z., in brief; to be published in Zbierka nalezov a uzneseni Ustavneho sudu Slovenskej republiky (Collection of decisions and judgments of the Constitutional Court), in complete version / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Institutions - Legislative bodies - Powers.
Fundamental Rights - Civil and political rights - Right of petition.
Fundamental Rights - Collective rights.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Referendums, right.

Headnotes:
Parliament must not interfere in the law-making process by way of referendum instigated by citizens. Such a control by Parliament would interfere with the principles of the sovereignty of the people and the separation of powers.

Summary:
The President brought a petition claiming the unconstitutionality of Statute no. 158/1994 amending Statute no. 564/1992 "On the Manner In Which a Referendum Is Held".
According to Article 86.d of the Constitution, the National Council is vested with the power to propose the holding of a referendum.
According to Article 93.1 of the Constitution, the forming of a union with other States or a secession therefrom shall be confirmed by a public referendum; a referendum may also be used to decide on other crucial issues affecting the public interest (Article 93.2). According to Article 95 of the Constitution, a referendum shall be announced by the President upon a petition submitted by no less than 350,000 citizens, or upon a resolution of the National Council not later than thirty days after the petition or the resolution have been submitted by the citizens or by the National Council, as the case may be.
The alleged conflict between Statute no. 158/1994 and the above quoted provisions of the Constitution was found in those provisions of the Statute according to which a petition submitted by citizens was prescribed to be delivered not to the President but to Parliament. According to other provisions of the Statute, Parliament was vested with the power to authorise a governmental body or a private institution to check the submitted petition for its conformity with the Constitution and with the Statute "On the Right of Petition".
The Constitutional Court ruled that under the Constitution the law-making process in the Slovak Republic is divided into two branches. The law-making power is most frequently exercised by Parliament. However, it may also be exercised directly by the citizens. Interference by the National Council in the law-making activity of the citizens would require explicit provision to this effect in the Constitution. The Constitution, however, vests the law-making power with the citizens who shall exercise this power directly or through their elected representatives (Article 2.1). This means that the citizens, when transferring their original law-making right to Parliament, still keep a share of their law-making power which may be exercised independently from Parliament. The right of a citizen to address Parliament with a petition for a referendum also enables him or her to exercise the primary legislative power in situations when Parliament would not exercise this power. Thus, the referendum is a means of protecting a citizen from Parliament if this body has no will, no possibility or no capacity to adopt a statute or when it cannot bear sole responsibility for adopting a required statute. Parliamentary control over a petition claiming a referendum would thus breach the principle of the sovereign will of the people. Furthermore, the principle of separation of powers as between the President and Parliament would be infringed upon.
Consequently, the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 1.1 and Article 1.3 of Statute no. 158/1994 were not in conformity with Article 95 of the Constitution. Article 1.3 of the Statute no. 158/1994 was found not to be in conformity with Articles 1,2.1 and 2.2 of the Constitution.

Languages: Slovak.

Identification: SVK-96-2-004
a) Slovakia / b) Constitutional Court / c) Panel / d) 11.07.1996 / e) I.US 7/96 / f) Case of interpretation of the Constitution / g) to be published in Zbierka nalezov a uzneseni Ustavneho sudu Slovenskej republiky (Collection of decisions and judgments of the Constitution-al Court) / h).

Keywords of the systematic thesaurus:
Institutions - Head of State - Powers.
Institutions - Legislative bodies - Relations with the Head of State.

Keywords of the alphabetical index: Competence within the executive power.

Headnotes:
In exercising his right to request reports from the government or from individual Ministers, the President must impose neither a procedure for the preparation of these reports nor a time-limit for their delivery.

Summary:
The government submitted to the Constitutional Court a petition on the interpretation of Article 102.r of the Constitution. According to that Article, the President shall have the right to be present at the meetings of the government, to preside over those meetings and to request reports from the government or from individual Ministers.
The conflict between the government and the President resided in the exercise of this right. The President had sought to impose certain obligations on the government and on individual Ministers in terms of reporting to him. The government objected on the grounds that the President's demands would subordinate the government to the President in violation of Article 108 of the Constitution and other constitutional provisions.
The Constitutional Court ruled that under the Constitution the President has no right to impose on the government or on an individual minister the procedure and the manner in which requested reports, data or information are to be delivered to the President. This right, the right of consideration of the demand, is vested in the exclusive authority of the government or the Minister. There is also no constitutional provision authorising the President to determine any time-limit in which the government or a Minister would be obliged to deliver the reports. In cases where the framers of the Constitution considered it adequate, the Constitution itself determined the terms in which the government was obliged to exercise its authority in the State interest over the activities of some other governmental body. For example, according to Article 113 of the Constitution, the government is obliged to present itself to the members of the National Council within thirty days of its formation and to submit to them its governmental programme, thus initiating a vote of confidence. The other example of such a determination is Article 102.n of the Constitution, according to which the President may return constitutional or other bills to Parliament with his comments for reconsideration within fifteen days from their adoption. Where no such time-limit is set by the Constitution, co-operation between governmental bodies is based solely on the principle of good co-operation, and the time spent in the preparation of requested reports is determined by the objective need to obtain this information from other institutions, if any, and by the time required to prepare the report after obtaining this information.

Languages: Slovak.