The Constitutional Court annulled part of the current law on parliamentary inquiry

Žurnal24IndependentCenter18 hr. ago

The Constitutional Court of Slovenia has invalidated part of the currently valid law on parliamentary inquiries, which previously prevented the National Assembly (DZ) from appointing an inquiry commission if a request for constitutional review of the act establishing the inquiry was submitted. The court ruled that such temporary suspension and delay in appointing the commission or continuing the parliamentary inquiry process until the Constitutional Court’s decision infringes upon the DZ’s authority, as defined by Article 93 of the Constitution. The State Council had challenged several provisions of the 2024 parliamentary inquiry law, including Article 1.a, which allowed certain entities to submit requests for constitutional review within 30 days of the act’s publication. The court emphasized that delays are not always necessary and could unnecessarily hinder the effective protection of constitutional rights. It clarified that while the Constitutional Court’s review is not excluded, the parliamentary inquiry process must still ensure minimal interference with the DZ’s role.

Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced legal analysis of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, focusing on the interpretation of constitutional provisions rather than taking a partisan stance. It reports both the challenge by the State Council and the court’s reasoning without overtly favoring either side. No

MladinaIndependentProgressiveyesterday

The Slovenian Constitutional Court has invalidated one provision of the previous government’s law on parliamentary inquiry while affirming that the existing regulation is good and necessary. The law, introduced by the former government led by Roberta Golob, included safeguards against misuse of parliamentary inquiries for political retaliation. These safeguards allowed a third of parliament members, the investigated person, and relevant state organs to request a constitutional court review of the inquiry’s constitutionality. The current government, led by Janez Janša, amended the law to remove these protections, which the Constitutional Court now deems unconstitutional. The article argues that this removal is flawed and presents a clear case for voting 'against' the new law in the upcoming referendum.

Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the removal of safeguards as an unconstitutional overreach by the current government, emphasizing the importance of checks on power. It portrays the previous government’s regulations as legitimate and necessary, suggesting the current law undermines democratic oversight. The tone,