CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Source: CODICES

Decision 08/2001 of 3 May 2001 (summary)

a) Bulgaria / b) Constitutional Court / c) / d) 03.05.2001 / e) 08/01 / f) / g) Darzaven vestnik (Official Gazette ), 44, 08.05.2001 / h) .

Headnotes:

The provisions of the Act on election of members of parliament, prescribing defrayal of expenses for the printing of voting papers by political parties and coalitions and by independent candidates, are unconstitutional.

Summary:

Proceedings were instituted at the call of 61 members of the National Assembly requesting that Sections 7.2 and 76 of the Act on election of members of parliament be declared unconstitutional as allegedly impeding the exercise of the right both to elect and to stand for election by rendering it substantially dependent on citizens' financial circumstances.

According to Section 72.2 of the Act, expenses for preparing and organising elections are defrayed by the state budget, the printing of voting papers excepted. This is amplified by Section 76 of the Act, which provides that printing costs are chargeable to the political parties and coalitions and to the independent candidates. It is accordingly prescribed that within 31 days prior to the election date, the sums required for printing of the voting papers should be paid into the account of the Council of Ministers. In the absence of a bank document certifying payment, registration of the parties, coalitions and independent candidates is withdrawn by the relevant electoral commission.

In reaching its decision, the Constitutional Court took into consideration the following points:

The text in question is altogether different from Section 7.2 of the Act on the election of members of parliament, local councillors and mayors (repealed), under which expenses relating to the technical and organisational preparation of elections were borne by the state. Nor does the statute now in force address the question of arrangements for subsidising the election campaigns of political parties and coalitions.[ENG-BUL-A-10] Article 10 of the Constitution stipulates that elections shall be held on the basis of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot. It follows from this provision that there is an explicit obligation of the state, not a right to organise or refrain from organising the elections in the specified manner. The very meaning of the word "election" embodies the requirement of pluralism, i.e. that participation by the subjects of the right to stand for election should be multiple.

It can be inferred from an examination of the text that elections must be conducted by universal suffrage. Admittedly the Constitution does not say that they must be free and fair, but there can be no doubt that these two requirements are inherent in elections by universal suffrage. Participation in elections is fair when it represents as faithfully as possible the attitude of society and the political views prevailing in the National Assembly. This fundamental need could not be fulfilled if the right to elect or to be elected was in any way limited.

Under the terms of [ENG-BUL-A-11] Article 11.1 of the Constitution, politics in the Republic of Bulgaria are founded on the principles of political pluralism. Without going deeply into this complex field, it should be noted that pluralism is chiefly upheld by the political parties, more so than by the citizens or political associations. Furthermore, according to [ENG-BUL-A-11] Article 11.3 of the Constitution, the parties contribute to the formation and expression of the citizens' political will. This is expressed in everyday political affairs and especially during the parliamentary elections. From this standpoint, the financial situation of the parties should not become an impediment to the expression of the citizens' will. Legal equality as to the participation of political parties in the elections cannot be claimed while at the same time imposing economic burdens which would hardly trouble some of them but would frankly prevent others from taking part in the electoral process.[ENG-BUL-A-6] Article 6.2 of the Constitution is also breached in that lack of adequate financial resources would disable independent candidates from participating in the elections. This in effect limits the principle of equality before the law on the basis of financial circumstances.

There are indeed "hopeless" political candidatures. It is understandable that these should be averted by means of fixed contributions that are non-refundable in the event of failure. This is a common practice, especially for elections of the majority type. But it must have nothing in common with the state's obligation to hold elections by universal suffrage.

In the light of the foregoing, the Court held the challenged provisions unconstitutional in the passages "with the exception of expenses for producing voting papers", "the party or coalition shall bear the expenses for producing the voting paper with which it contests the elections" and "initiative committees and independent candidates for parliamentary office shall make their own arrangements to pay the expenses for producing the voting papers with which the candidates contest the elections". It also held totally unconstitutional the other portions of the Act closely linked with those cited above.

Two of the judges entered dissenting opinions in signing this decision.