The authors analyse critically the General Provisions (GP) of the new act on the Constitutional Court which becomes legally binding from the 1th March 2019. The purpose of the GP shall be simplify and make more effective the whole procedure before the Constitutional Court. There are several reasons why this aim has not been achieved. The legislative process suffered from the severe flaws. Provisions concerning a proposal of initializing of proceedings and other submissions are unclear. The position of the parties and their representatives including participating parties is not very stable. The authors express some doubts on impartiality of judges in relation to their political past. They criticize the lack of consequences of a procedural decision by which the proposal of initializing is rejected only for the reason that in favour of it has voted less than seven judges. Finally, a supporting application of Civil Dispute Code is not enough for a proper functioning of the Constitutional Court.