|
MATULNÍK, M.: The essence of the
dispute concerning the Constitutional Court.
Právny obzor, 101, 2018, č. 1,
s. 83 - 103.
Abstract. The
Constitutional Court is an independent judicial authority vested with the
mandate to protect the constitution. It should be composed of thirteen judges.
However, at the moment, the Constitutional Court consists of only ten judges,
nine of which have already exceeded ten years of their twelve year term. Despite
the fact that parliament has already nominated eight candidates, the president
has appointed only one of them. The president reasoned his respective decision
with the existence of the constitutional guarantee of the right not to appoint a
judge". The existence of such constitutional guarantee has been contested by
both the candidates as well as by the third senate of the Constitutional Court.
The essence of the claim is anchored in an interpretation of the president's
power to appoint the judges and it could be expressed by the question of whether
the president is unconditionally obliged to appoint half of the candidates
nominated by parliament and if not, what are the limits of his discretion. In
the light of this question we need to focus on the purport and assignment of
this power and to distinguish its notarial, controlling (limited or extended)
and correcting role.
Key words:
constitutional court, parliamentary* selection, qualification criterion, power
of appointment
|
ISSN 2729-9228
(online)
ISSN 0032-6984
(print)
THEORETICAL REVIEW FOR ISSUES OF STATE AND LAW.
Právny obzor is peer-reviewed journal and is indexed in SCOPUS and HeinOnline database (INDEX TO FOREIGN LEGAL PERIODICALS).
|
