VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT

#70Vote of no confidence in the government

For months, the Government of the Slovak Republic has been plagued by internal political contradictions that have prevented it from pushing through key legislation necessary for the effective functioning of the state, especially assistance with the energy crisis. On 15 December, the National Council of the Slovak Republic passed a vote of no confidence in the government of Eduard Heger, with 78 of the 102 MPs present voting in favour of its downfall. This is the third vote of no confidence in the government in the history of the independent Slovak Republic.

The legitimacy of the government is derived in the Slovak Republic from the Parliament, so the government is accountable to the National Council of the Slovak Republic. The National Council may, at any time during the electoral period, pass a vote of no confidence in the government by a simple majority of all deputies, which is at least 76 votes.

At this difficult time, after a vote of no confidence, the president plays an important role in the system of state authorities. The Constitution of the Slovak Republic, Act No. 460/1992 Coll. ( the Constitution) regulates how the president should act.

The first step is the mandatory dismissal of the government by the President. If there is a vote of no confidence in the government, the president must dismiss the government without undue delay. The next step is to appoint a caretaker government.

In order to prevent lawlessness, the Constitution was amended by Constitutional Act No. 356/2011 Coll., thereby modifying the legal status of Article 115 of the Constitution. This constitutional law created room for the existence of a provisional government, which is entrusted by the head of state with a limited mandate, to carry out its activities until a new government is appointed. In this case, the Constitution does not give the president the option of choosing whom he entrusts to carry out the limited mandate of the provisional government. Article 115 (3) of the Constitution has provided for a single option for the president, namely, to entrust the former government with the exercise of the powers in respect of exhaustively enumerated matters until the appointment of a new government.

According to Article 115 (3) of the Constitution, the provisional government may decide on draft laws, government regulations, draft national budgets and final accounts, and international treaties brought to the government for negotiation by the president, as well as other security issues.

It should be noted that the government would have been in a better position if it had decided to resign on its own. In that case, it would not lose its powers. For example, the government would have lost the power to decide on major measures in the economic and social spheres or in the spheres of domestic and foreign policy. It cannot appoint or dismiss public officials, and even the approval of foreign trips and the use of the shortened legislative procedure can only be done by the government with the approval of the president.

The problem would arise if the president could not exercise his powers, because according to the Constitution they do not pass to anyone else, in which case the government would be left without an approver.