TFL Vsebine / Revija Javna uprava

Avtor ocenjuje ankaransko odločbo ustavnega sodišča s stališča kršitve ustavnega načela delitve oblast, in sicer glede razmerja med Državnim zborom kot ljudskim predstavništvom in Ustavnim sodiščem. Problematika delitve oblasti in sodnega aktivizma je postala aktualna že leta 1994, ko je Ustavno sodišče začelo posegati v ureditev občin, predvsem v Mestno občino Koper (odl. U-I- 90/94), nato pa je kulminirala leta 1998 v odločbi o referendumu o volilnem sistemu (odl. U-I-12/97). Avtor je kritičen do »ustavne koncepcije občine«, na podlagi katere je Ustavno sodišče odločilo, da je občina Koper protiustavna. V odločbi, ki se je nanašala na referendum o volilnem sistemu (U-I-12/97) je Ustavno sodišče spremenilo rezultat referenduma, ki je bil dve leti prej. Avtor navaja pet kršitev Ustave z vidika kršitve načela delitve oblasti: -prva: ukaz Državnemu zboru, da mora sprejeti določen zakon, -druga: poseg v redne lokalne volitve leta 2010, -tretja: neupoštevanje zakonodajnega postopka po členu 91/2 člena Ustave, -četrta: kreiranje (ustavne) pravice določenega naselja do lastne občine, -peta: sprememba značaja referenduma iz člena 139/3 Ustave. Po zaključku ankaranske zgodbe bo potrebno - »SINE IRA ET STUDIO« - ugotoviti, kako na tej izkušnji graditi teorijo in prakso odnosov med Ustavnim sodiščem na eni in Državnim zborom in vlado na drugi strani. Avtor navaja šest ugotovitev, ki izhajajo iz ankaranske zgodbe: -Ustavno sodišče ni najvišji ustavni organ. -Ustave ne razlaga samó Ustavno sodišče, ampak jo najprej razlaga Državni zbor. -Odločbe Ustavnega sodišča niso absolutno nedotakljive. -Napačno je stališče, da Državni zbor ne sme sprejeti zakona v nasprotju z odločbo Ustavnega sodišča. -Pričakovati je, da bo ankaranska zgodba po eni strani prispevala k zmanjšanju poseganja Ustavnega sodišča v zakonodajno funkcijo Državnega zbora in k povečanju uporabe načela sodnega samoomejevanja, po drugi strani pa bo pozitivno vplivala tako na Ustavno sodišče kot tudi na Državni zbor, da bosta v medsebojnem delovanju krepila načelo delitve oblasti. -Ankaranska zgodba je lahko spodbuda, da bo ustavnopravna stroka storila več za primerjalno pravno proučevanje prakse drugih držav glede uveljavljanja načela delitve oblasti, na kar zlasti opozarja bivši ustavni sodnik mag. Matevž Krivic.

The author considers the decision of the Constitutional Court on Ankaran in terms of the violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers, specifically with regard to the relationship between the National Assembly as the People’s Representative and the Constitutional Court. The issue of separation of powers and judicial activism became relevant as early as in 1994, when the Constitutional Court began to interfere in the arrangement of municipalities, in particular in the Municipality of Koper (Dec. U-I-12/97), culminating in 1998 with the decision on the referendum on the electoral system (Dec. U-I- 12/97). The author is critical of 'the constitutional concept of the municipality’ on the basis of which the Constitutional Court ruled that the Municipality of Koper was unconstitutional. In the Decision relating to the referendum on the electoral system (U-I- 12/97), the Constitutional Court changed the results of the referendum, which had taken place two years before. The author states five violations of the Constitution in terms of the violation of the principle of separation of powers: (1) the order to the National Assembly to adopt the specified law, (2) the interference in regular local elections in 2010, (3) disregard to the legal procedure under Article 91(2) of the Constitution, (4) establishing a (constitutional) right of a settlement to its own municipality, (5) the change of a nature of referendum referred to in Article 139(3) of the Constitution. After the conclusion of the case of Ankaran, it will be necessary sine ira et studio to establish how, based on this experience, to build theory and practice of relations between the Constitutional Court, on the one side, and the National Assembly and the Government, on the other side. On the basis of the case of Ankaran, the author states six findings: -The Constitutional Court is not the highest constitutional authority. -The Constitution is not only interpreted by the Constitutional Court, but is first interpreted by the National Assembly. -The decisions of the Constitutional Court are not absolutely inviolable. -It is wrong to consider that the National Assembly may not adopt laws that are contrary to the decision of the Constitutional Court. -The case of Ankaran is expected to, on the one hand, contribute to limiting the Constitutional Court’s interference in the legislative function of the National Assembly and to increasing the application of the selfrestraint, while, on the other hand, it will have a positive impact on the Constitutional Court and on the National Assembly, with a view to mutually strengthening the principle of separation of powers. -The case of Ankaran may serve as an encouragement to the Constitutional science to increase their efforts in the comparative legal study of practice of other countries concerning the implementation of the principle of separation of powers, as pointed out in particular by the former constitutional judge, Matevž Krivic, MSc.

Separation of powers in the case of Ankaran