Oversight office of the Republic
Office of Constitutional Revision
Established under Article 317 of the Constitution · keeper of the consolidated text
The report states what in the Constitution contradicts itself, refers to something that does not exist, has never been applied, or has been found unclear by a court.
Article 317(3): the Office reports annually and publicly upon contradictions between provisions, cross-references that have failed, provisions that have never been applied, and provisions that courts have found unclear.
Cross-reference failed
The schedule referred to has never been adopted by organic law. Article 265(1)(n) makes void the conferral of a function outside Article 163(3), so the reference governs a nullity that operates without it. Reported for a third year.
Never applied
The provision governs the disposal of goods leaving common holding. No case has arisen since commencement. Reported so that its absence from practice is recorded and not mistaken for repeal.
Contradiction between provisions
Article 100(4) directs a surplus of production first to unmet registered needs and then to the reserve. Article 105 funds the formation of new enterprises from the reserve. The order in which the two operate within one period is unstated, and the Congress and the Audit Office have applied it differently.
Cross-reference failed
Article 231(2) states that Article 143(9) governs standing against the plan. Article 143(9) states the applicants without stating whether the list is exhaustive. Two courts have reached different answers, and the question is before the Constitutional Court.
Never applied
Restorative panels may agree the forms of reparation the paragraph lists. Panels have been drawn but none has yet used the third form. Recorded without recommendation.
Resolved and closed
Reported in 2026 as an apparent conflict over what an emergency reaches. The Constitutional Court held in CC-2026-008 that Article 42(2) places the prohibitions it names beyond every derogation, and the report is closed.
No finding matches those conditions.
A finding of the Office alters no provision and binds no court. It records a defect so that the Assembly, the courts and any person reading the text can see it. Article 230(3) keeps the Office and every other body outside the legislative function, so the correction of a contradiction belongs to the Assembly and to the amendment procedure of Title XII.
One finding closed this year. The apparent conflict between Article 42(2) and Title X on derogation was resolved by the Constitutional Court in CC-2026-008, and the entry records the resolution. The history of the question stays on the register.
A provision that has never been applied remains in force. The Office records the absence so that it is not mistaken for repeal, and so that the ten-year review of Article 318 has the fact before it. Two such provisions stand in the current report.
Where a court states that a provision admits of more than one reading, or where two courts reach different answers on the same words, the Office records it. The question of standing against the plan under Article 143(9) and Article 231(2) is before the Constitutional Court on that footing.
The report is published in full, in open and machine-readable form, free of charge, with the dissenting opinions of members of the college. Article 242(3) lays it before the Assembly for debate in public sitting. Article 242(2) sends it to no organ before publication and gives no organ an opportunity to alter it.