The Constitutional Court has dismissed a request by the two opposition parties to review Slovenia's recognition of Palestine, which the parliament finalised on 4 June. The court declared it does not have the jurisdiction to review such a decision.

MPs of the conservative Democrats (SDS) and New Slovenia (NSi) brought the application on 3 July, asking the court to annul the recognition of Palestine on the grounds that parliamentary rules of procedure and the constitution were breached in the process.

But in a decision made public on 8 October, the court said it does not have the jurisdiction to review a decision on recognition of a state because there is no legislation that would give it powers to assess the constitutionality and legality of decisions on recognition of a new state.

It said that recognition of a state is a unilateral legal decision by which states accept a pre-existing fact as being in conformity with international law.

Such a "decision is not a regulation containing general and abstract legal norms that regulate the rights and obligations of legal entities", it added.

The court carried such a decision by five votes to three with two of the judges who voted against penning dissenting opinions.

Welcoming the court's decision, Prime Minister Robert Golob said it was "completely in line with expectations", adding that the act of recognition was legitimate and legal and now final.

National Assembly President Urška Klakočar Zupančič commented by saying the court's position was that interpreting the rules of procedure is within the purview of the president of parliament, or committee chairs in case of committee sessions.

Slovenia recognised Palestine on 4 June after a turbulent day of strategising in parliament.

The SDS filed a motion for a consultative referendum in an attempt to defer the vote by 30 days in line with previous parliamentary practice right after it withdrew its original request filed just a day before.

The party said the original proposal was "withdrawn for technical reasons" to correct the wording, but the coalition saw it as a manoeuvre to delay the recognition further.

The coalition then decided to circumvent the request by reinterpreting an article of the rules of procedure and voted down the referendum request right away before proceeding to vote on Palestine.

The move was criticised by the opposition and some legal experts as abuse of parliamentary procedure. The SDS argued the MPs were deprived of 30 days to reflect whether it was sensible to recognise Palestine while the war was raging in Gaza.

This is what judges Klemen Jaklič and Rok Svetlič pointed out in their dissenting opinions. Svetlič said the constitutional review would be not just about the act of Palestine recognition but also about the procedure by which it was endorsed.

If a decision is made in violation of a set procedure, it itself could be unconstitutional, said Svetlič adding that the court had ruled on the unconstitutionality of laws in this way before.

If the court could indeed not review the parliament's decisions, this would send out the message that the National Assembly is fully free to violate its own procedures, he argues.

Similarly, Jaklič argues the court's decision sets a precedent allowing a parliamentary majority to act against the rules.

He disagrees with the interpretation of the law that the court has no powers to decide in such a matter, arguing the case has broader implications for the rule of law.