Slovak President Not Obligated to Consult Constitutional Court on Referendum Questions, Lawyers Say

Slovak legal scholars are clarifying the president's role concerning referendums, emphasizing that while consultation with the Constitutional Court is possible, it is not a mandatory step. This distinction is crucial as President Peter Pellegrini navigates the complexities of proposed plebiscites. The consensus among experts like Marek Domin and Peter Kresák is that the president has discretion in seeking judicial review, a point that may be lost on those eager to challenge the legitimacy of the upcoming referendum.

“

The head of state is not obliged to turn to the Constitutional Court regarding a disputed referendum question, it is only their option.

The core issue revolves around the proposed questions themselves. The first, which sought public opinion on shortening the parliamentary term, has already been flagged by the Constitutional Court in a 2022 ruling concerning a similar matter. Legal experts like Vincent Bujňák and Domin point to this precedent, suggesting that the court would likely find the question unconstitutional again, rendering a referendum on it invalid. This aligns with Slovakia's constitutional framework, which does not permit citizens to recall parliament through external means and upholds the principle that MPs are not bound by imperative mandates.

“

I assume that the Constitutional Court, which in the sense of the principle of legal certainty should decide similarly (equally) in similar (identical) matters, would also come to the conclusion that the first referendum question is contrary to the constitution, and therefore it would not be possible to declare a referendum on such a question.

While the other two questions—regarding the abolition of lifelong pensions for certain officials and the reinstatement of the Special Prosecutor's Office and the National Criminal Agency—may not directly violate the constitution, their formulation raises concerns. Kresák notes that they function more as expressions of opinion than as legally binding norms. This subtle distinction could prove problematic, as referendums are intended to enact or amend laws, not merely to gauge public sentiment on political issues. From a Slovak perspective, ensuring that referendums serve their intended purpose of direct democratic participation in law-making, rather than becoming platforms for political signaling, is paramount.

“

The first referendum question does not respect this and wants to break the constitution once, even in the part where the constitution guarantees MPs that they are not bound by orders.