The court invented the rules, violated the Constitution” - VV does not stop, this time strongly attacks constitutional order

Constitutional Court Breaks the Constitution

The announcement issued by the Constitutional Court today constitutes dangerous deviation from the constitutional role. It is contrary to the fundamental principles of the rule of law and the division of powers.

The Constitutional Court is an independent body that is tasked to interpret and control the compliance of other laws or acts with the Constitution within its jurisdiction.

The announcement has clarified nothing but that the court has exceeded constitutional competencies. The court does not have the right to create new judicial standards or to impose rules that have no basis in the Constitution.

The court has chosen to arbitrarily devise rules. The invention of completely new rules in the middle of the process and substantial interference in the competencies of the Assembly is violation of constitutional order.

The Constitution approves and changes the Assembly. Taking on this competence by usurping the constitutional role of the Parliament is a blow to the democratic system that is sourced to the sovereign. There are no other known forms of writing and rewrite, approval of changing the Constitution. It either makes the Assembly or the popular referendum. Members of the Constitutional Court are subject neither to one nor the other. When an organ that should be the Guardian of the Constitution begins to produce new standards or meet standards that are not in the Constitution nor the legislature, it is transformed into an unconstitutional organ.

Where, exactly, is it written in the Constitution, in the Rule of the Parliament, in the Court Act in the case of KO119/14, or in the Court Act in the Ko124/25 case, or in the international jurisdiction that the largest parliamentary group has the right to propose the same candidate only three times? Where does this standard originate? Why not twice, four times, ten times? Where is the constitutional or doctrinal relationship with the number three?

The Court's announcement warns that the expected act would severely affect the division of powers. Unpredictable cases and flagrant interference in the competencies of the Parliament. The court cannot usurp the function of drafting or ratification of the Parliament Rule because it constitutes violations of the Constitution, the constitutional principle of separation of powers, which is one of the pillars of parliamentary democracy, respectively.

The new rules warned by the Constitutional Court if they are not in the Constitution, nor in the Assembly Rule can they be in any Act.

The decision reflects party motives. Every time the Movement V It must act according to the rules previously imposed by the Court as a jurisdiction in analog cases, as in the 2014 Act, those rules are changing the Court itself.

Partial size of the decision is also marked by the completely unnecessary focus on the head of the Constituent Session, Mr. Avni Dehari. The same legal effect would have been linked to the agenda without subjecting it to the session Chief Image. Because, after all, the head of the constitutional session is not constitutional subject, only the Parliament is. The head of the Constitutive session is only subject to the Parliament's Rule. Noting only the chairman of the session without any legal justification, it is clearly revealed that the goal was the political labeling of his image according to opposition parties' vocabulary.

If the chief of the constitutional session has acted incorrectly when it has asked MPs to vote for, against or abstained in terms of the commission for the secret vote, it is unintelligible that the Court has not listed this violation in the Koo 124/25 Act, announced on June 26th after the session's chairman had already begun calling the commission's May 1st 2025 vote.

The court has clearly chosen to take sides by seriously affecting democratic principles and challenging popular will.

This is a serious warning about the danger of uncontrolled judicial power, which instead of controlling other powers, becomes a source of institutional seizure itself.