BRATISLAVA (SITA) -- The Slovak Constitutional Court in Kosice communicated its ruling on the case of Emil Spišák's complaint that the Slovak Parliament violated his rights to perform his duties as parliamentary deputy on February 5, 1997. The point of the case is that the Slovak National Party (SNS) did not propose then east Slovakia candidate Emil Spišák, who received the most preferential votes, to substitute for the deceased Bartolomej Kunc, but it selected Ladislav Hruška. He placed 13th in the SNS list of candidates and did not collect the necessary 10 percent share of SNS votes in the region that would empower him to take a seat in the Parliament. The SNS reasoned its decision that at the time when Spisak's claim was in effect, he was no longer a party member. The court's reasoning reads that the citizens gave Spišák 2809 preferential votes, 12.7 percent of all SNS votes in the region placing him second after Bartolomej Kunc, and Spišák was supposed to replace him. Parliament violated the law and impeded Spišák from performing his public function by deciding that someone who did not fulfill the legal requirements would be installed instead of Spišák. Parliament violated the principle of legal certainty not only for Spišák but for all the substitutes for parliamentary deputies, and it indicated that their rights will not necessarily be respected in the future. The ruling further reads that the election law does not link the deputy function to party affiliation. At the same time it guarantees that no one should be impeded in performing his or her function simply because he quit the party. Moreover, the right of substitutes is valid during the whole term of service. The Court did not fulfill Spisak's request to cancel the parliamentary decision because it falls beyond its authority.