Unprecedented for parliamentary times rearrangement in its operation Parliament Causes the decision of the Court for the discount by parliamentary office 3 of its members “Spartansยป.
The House Bureau awaits the official text of the Supreme Special Court to apply the relevant decisions brought – for the first time in the post -political history – Plenary operation with 297 instead of 300 Members.
Conflicting views to reduce the number of Members
At the same time, however, in the background they are completely trafficked conflicting Views by experienced legal and constitutionalists on whether the reduction of the entire number of Members also support the limits of the majority required to submit proposals, the approval of bills and the revision of the Constitution.
For the time being the prevailing view of parliamentary officials is that all the relevant boundaries must adapted downwards. For example, the majority of 151 will be 149.
The opposite view invokes the Article 74 of the House of Representatives that distinguishes the votes to those who require percentage majorities (eg 3/5 of Members) and in those who determine the limits based on the number of seats and not the number of MPs.
In particular, paragraph 1 of Article 74 of the House of Representatives (CBB) provides that:
“1. As for the Constitution or the Coinning of the Bodybuilders, either for the application or a proposal or to make a decision or for any other shame, this one is subjected to the coolest number of the bolts of the bolts of the work of the House and the fraction is omitted without prejudice to the opposing provision of the Constitution or the Constitution. “
This category includes among others:
– the Proposal of no confidence against the government where the threshold for its deposit falls to 49 MPs from 50 in force.
– the proposal setting up where the limit of 1/5 in 297 MPs falls to 59 instead of 60 in force (for the submission of a Proposal Proposal the Constitution and the Regulation requests signing 30 Members)
Always according to some constitutionalists or 2nd paragraph of Article 74 It defines some votes where the majority limit is “inelastic” and is perfectly related to the number of plenary seats even if they have not been paid in their entirety.
Specifically, KTV states:
“2. As the Constitution or Communism requires the absolute majority of the entire number of the Bowers to make a decision, this majority is subjected to the co -operative number of the seats of the boil. “
If the view of these constitutionalists prevails the limit eg. for:
– Approval of proposals for setting up a pre -trial committee, – ministers in the Judicial Council
– bills to change territory
It remains at 151 even if the House operates with 297 MPs.
The paradox with the constitutional review
However this view leads to some paradox that the House will face in the forthcoming constitutional review. On the basis of this approach, the lower limit of 151 remains unaffected, but the maximum of 180 falls to 178.
Dissolution of the Spartans and 8 partisan parliament
However, the discount from the parliamentary office of B. Stiga, P. Dimitriadis and Al. Zervea brings about the dissolution of the Ko of Spartan as it will not have the necessary number of Members and the Parliament It will operate with 8 parties.