U-I-50/11

Reference no.:
U-I-50/11
Abstract:
The institution of parliamentary inquiry is directly guaranteed in Article 93 of the Constitution and the legislature must regulate such in detail in a law. With reference to such, the legislature must ensure that the parliamentary inquiry procedure is efficient. This entails that the procedural provisions of the Parliamentary Inquiries Act and of the Rules of Procedure on Parliamentary Inquiries must ensure that a parliamentary inquiry can be initiated, conducted, and terminated within a reasonable period of time and that important facts clarifying the subject of inquiry can be established, and that such is not rendered impossible due to the abuse of rights, or the avoidance or concealment of information of any participant in proceedings. The requirement that a parliamentary inquiry must be efficient is furthermore protected by the constitutional right of a third of the deputies of the National Assembly to require that the National Assembly order a parliamentary inquiry. Article 93 of the Constitution guarantees these deputies appropriate means for effective participation in inquiries, especially in deciding which evidence should be presented. One third of the members of an inquiry commission may always require that certain evidence be presented against the will of the majority. With reference to such, it does not proceed from the Rules of Procedure on Parliamentary Inquiries or from the Parliamentary Inquiries Act that a motion for evidence of a minority of the members of the commission should be particularly substantiated nor that any other body, authority, or a certain number of members of the commission can decide whether it is needed and rational or if such motion entails the abuse of rights. Therefore, the requirement of at least a third of the members of the inquiry commission that the president or a member of the commission be heard as a witness inevitably causes this person to be excluded from the commission. The repetitive, continuous, and systematic exclusion of certain members of the inquiry commission with the objective to hinder the work of the commission may lead to longer delays in the work of the parliamentary commission. Thereby, it is possible that the commission does not conclude its work until its mandate expires. The effectiveness of parliamentary inquiry may be ensured only by a procedural mechanism which promptly, objectively, predictably, reliably, and with the main objective to ensure the integrity of the legal order ensures that motions for presenting evidence which are manifestly intended to delay proceedings, to mob the participants, which are malicious or entirely irrelevant to the subject of the parliamentary inquiry be dismissed. The Parliamentary Inquiries Act and the Rules of Procedure on Parliamentary Inquiries do not contain such a procedural mechanism. Due to the fact that there is no such specific regulation in the Parliamentary Inquiries Act and the Rules of Procedure on Parliamentary Inquiries, the effective nature of parliamentary inquiry, which is determined in Article 93 of the Constitution, is reduced contrary to the Constitution.
Document in PDF:
Type of procedure:
review of constitutionality and legality of regulations and other general acts
Type of act:
statute
Date of application:
04.03.2011
Date of decision:
23.06.2011
Type of decision adopted:
decision
Outcome of proceedings:
establishment – it is inconsistent with the Constitution/statute
Document:
AN03561