How permissible from the point of view of the Constitution would be a refusal by the National Assembly to consider the president's proposal for a referendum on the euro? Is it possible for the Speaker of the Parliament Natalia Kiselova to directly return it to the sender as inadmissible? The topic in the program “Your Day” on NOVA News was commented on by the lecturer in Constitutional Law, Prof. Dr. Ekaterina Mihaylova.
In her words, if the proposal is returned as inadmissible, this will mean that the deputies will actually “not reject it”. They will simply accept that they will not consider such an issue. “We are yet to find out what will happen. There are such moments in the life of a person holding important positions in the state, when many things depend on him. And for the Speaker of the National Assembly - as it is with rather procedural powers, this decision will be an exceptional test for him", she emphasized.
And she expressed hope that Natalia Kiselova will "live up to the institution and the interests of the Bulgarian people".
Because Bulgaria's interests are to become a member of the European Union and NATO and the eurozone, and this is part of this whole path. "We became members of the European Union and NATO. This was our interest about 20 years ago. Now this interest must be realized. By joining the euro bloc, Bulgaria made a commitment at a time when it was ready - to reach the introduction of the euro", recalled the Constitutional Law lecturer.
That is - we once had a political agreement to become members of the European Union. Secondly, we had a treaty that was ratified by Bulgaria and all foreign members of the European Union. And in third place we have - the implementation of this treaty. "This is the situation. And now the question is, can we hold a referendum at the moment when this treaty is about to end?", she emphasized.
And she expressed the opinion that the referendum proposed by the president is questionable whether it can be held at all. And what's more - it is categorically not constitutionally permissible. Because Article 5 of the Constitution states that international treaties that have been adopted, ratified in the appropriate order, entered into force and are promulgated - have priority over domestic law. And EU membership is an international treaty, which, in order to enter into force - is ratified by all member states of the European Community.
So on the one hand "for once we have the Constitution telling us that this treaty has priority over national legislation" and secondly, in order to become members of the EU, we amended our Fundamental Law - by which we said that we are participating in the construction of the EU and transferred powers to it. "A country that does not fulfill its contractual obligations - may not be excluded, but it will be viewed as a country that cannot be a serious member of this organization", pointed out Professor Mihaylova.
And she was categorical that after reading Rumen Radev's reasons for the referendum - she did not find a single argument that would legally support the request for it. "There are some emotional things there", she is categorical.
Professor Mihaylova also commented on the hypothesis that, if Kiselova refuses to have the proposal considered in the National Assembly - the president will not actually be able to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court. "If there is no act of parliament - there is nothing to send to the Constitutional Court. Because the Constitutional Court only considers things that are described in the Constitution. It can rule on the constitutionality of laws, decisions and other acts of the National Assembly. If there is no act of the National Assembly, the president has nothing to bring forward", she explained. And added: "However, if we enter into the hypothesis that the referendum proposal is submitted to the National Assembly, considered and rejected - then the president can attack it before the Constitutional Court".