<\/p>\n
(implementing some considerations contained in the Constitutional Court Decision No 10\/2023 on reviewing the\u00a0<\/em>constitutionality of the \u0218or Party)<\/em><\/p>\n In principle, Promo-LEX Association appreciates the authors\u2019 initiative to amend the legal framework to ensure the execution and implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision No\u00a010\/2023 on reviewing the constitutionality of the \u0218or Party. At the same time, we would like to point out the need for observing the proportionality principle when determining the categories of persons whose right to be elected would be restricted.<\/p>\n Even though the Constitutional Court did not find any legal gaps when examining the case of \u0218or party\u2019s constitutionality and did not call it to the notice of relevant authorities, the Parliament pro-actively drafted a bill transposing the Court\u2019s considerations.<\/p>\n We consider that the proposed amendments to the Law on Political Parties prohibiting the use of attributes of political parties declared unconstitutional and changing\/clarifying the subsequent procedure for a political party\u2019s liquidation following its declaration unconstitutional are judicious.<\/p>\n However, the proposal to amend the Electoral Code by adding one more justifying reason to the list of restrictions to the right to be elected requires extensive consultation with political parties and stakeholders, legal expertise, and consultation with the Venice Commission.<\/p>\n Based on the following circumstances:<\/p>\n It could be admitted, however, that a measure temporarily restricting the right to be elected could be justified, under certain conditions, in relation to members of the executive body of the political party declared unconstitutional, given the importance of decisions made by such members.<\/p>\n It should be recalled that the High Court referred to the fact that statements, speeches and positions of the party\u2019s President, Vice-Presidents and party leaders, as well as actions\/inactions of the party\u2019s management to distance themselves from the actions or public statements of party leaders are imputable to the party (clauses 162-164 of the Constitutional Court Decision No\u00a010\/2023).<\/p>\n At the same time, such measure cannot be justified in relation to persons who held elective office or were listed as substitute candidates, unless the individual guilt of each person has been proved.<\/p>\n Our recommendation to the authors and Parliament\u2019s Committee on Legal Affairs, Appointments and Immunities is to:<\/p>\n\n
\na) Authors of the draft law intend to introduce and apply a prohibition with retroactive effect, since at the time of the Constitutional Court\u2019s Decision No\u00a010\/2023 such a prohibition or such an effect of the party\u2019s declared unconstitutionality did not exist in the law or the High Court\u2019s ruling.
\nb) Further examination is required as to whether ineligibility to be elected (which is an individual restriction) can be introduced into law and applied in the case of a political party\u2019s declared unconstitutionality (which is a sanction applied to a legal entity, where the individual responsibility or guilt of a person has not been established). In this regard, the proportionality principle seems not to have been analyzed by the legal initiative\u2019s authors, given the inclusion of such a broad category of persons whose right to be elected would be restricted.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n
\n
\n