The Constitutional Court has established specific parameters regarding the initiation of a referendum concerning legislation. According to the Court, if a minimum of 40,000 signatures are collected, the National Assembly is obligated to call a referendum on the associated law. However, the Court clarified that the legal framework mandates that the referendum must pertain to the entire text of the law, even if only one specific provision within the law is the subject of dispute.
This ruling was reached by the constitutional judges with seven votes in favor, while one judge, Marko Starman, issued a dissenting opinion. The Court’s decision was contextualized by a recent case involving an emergency law. In late May, after trade unions and civil society groups submitted a petition requesting a subsequent legislative referendum on the emergency law, the Constitutional Court ultimately ruled against the call for a referendum.
The primary justification cited was that, according to the Constitution, it was not permissible to conduct such a subsequent legislative referendum on the law in question. These rulings underscore the strict procedural requirements governing the amendment or challenge of enacted legislation. The constitutional mechanism dictates that while public petitioning can trigger a referendum, the scope and timing of such a vote are rigidly defined by the existing constitutional provisions governing the law’s structure.
Topics: #referendum #law #constitutional
