Институтът на разпускане на парламента-интегрираща или дискреционна власт на президента?

Abstract

Dissolution in its broadest sense means decomposition or disintegration. In the constitutional law it implies the dismissal of an Assembly. In the Article it indicates the lawful act of the Executive to put an abrupt end to the life of the Parliament. It is lawful in the sense that it is exercised according to the Constitution and is not a product of power of the President. The exercise of the right to dissolve Parliament presupposes certain conditions. But the general elections that follow dissolution represent an important safeguard against an abuse of the right. The most interesting feature of the institution of dissolution is the fact that it represents an intervention of the Executive in the field of the Legislative. It is thus fundamentally linked with the evolution of the principle of separation of powers. In this sense the dissolution of the Parliament means the need of mutual influence and interaction between Executive and Legislative. Though in theory one can conceive of dissolution with or without limitations, in practice various restrictions have been imposed in order to secure the proper functioning of the institutions. The common aim of the restrictions is to prevent an abuse of the right. The most of the Constitutions are giving the right to dissolve the Parliament to the Head of the Executive requiring the co-operation of another state organ. The President could dissolve the Parliament in case that the act of the dissolution is signed by the Prime Minister. In the Bulgarian Constitution there is not similar restriction and according to the necessity of control it is conceivable that the Constitutional Court should concur for dissolution to be valid. To conclude it should be note that the dissolution of the Parliament is an instrument of control in case the Parliament is ceased to represent the electorate and the Constitutions are imposed limits to an abuse of the right of dissolution. But this conclusion should not lead to an underestimation of the potential dangers inherent in the right.