Povzetek: Po spremembi Ustave leta 2013, s katero je bila odpravljena določba 90. člena o vezanosti Državnega zbora na odločitev volivcev na zakonodajnem referendumu, je taka ustavna zapoved določena le še za referendum o mednarodnih povezavah. Na zakonski ravni je to vprašanje urejeno tudi za druge vrste referendumov na državni in lokalni ravni, vendar se razlikuje ne samo glede ustavne podlage, temveč tudi glede vsebine in razsežnosti te vezanosti. Pri tem še zlasti izstopa ureditev tega vprašanja za zakonodajni referendum. Ker Zakon o referendumu in o ljudski iniciativi tudi po petih letih še ni usklajen s spremembo Ustave, se zastavlja vprašanje ustavne skladnosti njegovih določb o enoletni prepovedi sprejetja zakona, ki bi bil vsebinsko v nasprotju z odločitvijo volivcev, in posledično sporov, ki lahko v zvezi s tem nastanejo. Vezanost zakonodajalca lahko določi samo Ustava, zato je z ustavnopravnega vidika vprašljivo, ali lahko zakon določi, kako in koliko časa naj bo Državni zbor vezan na referendumski izid. Taka vezanost namreč Državni zbor omejuje pri izvrševanju njegove temeljne ustavno določene zakonodajne funkcije. Če zakon ohrani enoletni suspenzivni rok, bi zakon, ki bi bil sprejet v nasprotju s tako prepovedjo, lahko presojalo Ustavno sodišče z vidika njegove procesne ustavnosti. Ne glede na pravila o vezanosti pa je treba upoštevati, da Državni zbor ni vezan na referendumsko odločitev, če bi ta povzročila protiustavno stanje. V tem primeru je dolžan odpraviti protiustavnost zakona, ki jo je ugotovilo Ustavno sodišče, ne glede na odločitev volivcev na referendumu.

Ključne besede: zakonodajni referendum, referendumska odločitev, vezanost Državnega zbora, prepoved sprejetja zakona, suspenzivni rok, ustavnosodna presoja referenduma, formalna protiustavnost zakona

Title: Dispute over the Binding Nature of a Referendum Decision

Abstract: After the 2013 constitutional amendment, which removed the provision on the binding nature of the voters' decision in a legislative referendum for the National Assembly from Article 90, this constitutional rule only remains valid for the referendum on international associations. On a legislative level, this question is regulated for other state and local referendums; however, the rule differs not only by its constitutional basis, but also by substance and extent. The regulation of the question in relation to legislative referendum is especially out-standing. Since the Referendum and Popular Initiative Act still, after five years, has not been modified in line with the constitutional amendment, the question of the constitutionality of the law's provisions on a one-year prohibition on adoption of a law in contradiction with the voters' decision, and potential following conflicts, arises. Only the Constitution can bind the legislator; therefore, it is questionable from a constitutional law point of view if a legislative act may stipulate how and for how long the outcome of a referendum should bind the National Assembly. Such a provision importantly limits the National Assembly in performing its fundamental constitutionally determined legislative function. If the one-year suspensive deadline is retained, a law passed in contradiction with the prohibition could be subject to a formal (procedural) constitutional review by the Constitutional Court. Regardless of the rules on the binding nature of the decision, it has to be taken into account that the National Assembly is not bound by the decision if it would give rise to an unconstitutional situation. In such cases, it has to eliminate the unconstitutionality of the law, as determined by the Constitutional Court, regardless of the voters' referendum decision.

Keywords: legislative referendum, referendum decision, binding of the National Assembly, prohibition of adoption of laws, suspensive deadline, constitutional review of referendum, formal unconstitutionality of a law