The Constitutional Court on Wednesday unanimously ruled that prerequisites for holding a referendum on the Labour Act (ZOR) provisions on collective bargaining had ceased to exist with the government's withdrawal of its amendments to the ZOR from the legislative procedure.

"Citizens have demonstrated their political will with more than enough signatures, despite the rigid provisions which strongly discourage civil initiatives for referendum," GONG says in the statement.

It goes on to say that under the Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court was to have established if the content of the referendum question was in line with the Constitution and if constitutional provisions for calling a referendum had been met.

Under the Constitution, the parliament calls a referendum if a request to that effect is supported by ten percent of the electorate, GONG says, adding that in making the decision on the referendum, the Constitutional Court was not governed by constitutional provisions and the Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court, but by some other criteria.

Such a decision discourages any future civil initiative for calling a referendum and restricts citizens' right to exercise power by electing their representatives and making decisions in direct elections, GONG says.

The decision not to hold the referendum and the political statements by the president and judges of the Constitutional Court have brought the Court dangerously close to the political interests and positions of the ruling structure, thus jeopardising its status of the main, independent guardian of the Constitution, says GONG.