Pensions await the selection of judges

Yesterday, due to insufficient number of votes, the Constitutional Court could not make a decision on the constitutionality of the provisions of the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance, on the basis of which many judges were sent to old-age pension last year at the age of 64 and 67, the News confirmed.

Before the Constitutional Court, there are several proposals for the evaluation of the constitutionality of this provision of the law, the application of which has caused disputes and controversies in the public, and after a several-month break, all of them, combined into one case, were on the agenda yesterday.

However, considering that the court is working with minimal capacities after three of them retired and the successors were not chosen, the decision was not made in this and some other cases because all four judges did not agree on the position.

Since the court by law has seven judges, the decision requires four votes - which was not the case.

On the website of the court it was announced that "in the case UI No. 30/20, 41/21, 43/21, 10/22 and 11/22, it did not make a decision, because the proposal of the judge-rapporteur did not receive the required majority prescribed by the Constitution".

The proposal of the reporter judge was, according to Vijesti's information, that the provision obliging female judges to retire at the age of 64 is considered discriminatory. This case can be considered again before the US, explained the News.

Proposals for constitutional review were submitted to the US by the Judicial Council, several judges who were found to have terminated their functions, but also the Administrative Court - before which the lawsuits of those judges who were sent to retirement are pending.

The Law on the Constitutional Court stipulates that if the regular court finds an initiative for the evaluation of constitutionality, it can stop the decision and send a proposal to the Supreme Court. In that case, the constitutional court instance has 45 days to declare the constitutionality of the proposal - in this case, the provisions of the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance.

Judges of the Supreme Court and lower courts, whose duties were terminated by the Judicial Council in August of last year, initiated a constitutional and administrative dispute and are requesting that the decision be annulled, stating that it is discriminatory, unconstitutional, illegal and contrary to the conventions and standards of the European Court for Human Rights. rights.

A joint constitutional initiative was submitted by more than 10 former judges, who initiated the procedure for the review of the constitutionality of the provision of the article of the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance on the basis of which their office was terminated. It states that men acquire the right to an old-age pension when they reach the age of 66, and women when they reach the age of 64 and have at least 15 years of insurance experience. Also the provision that "the insured acquires the right to an old-age pension when he reaches 40 years of insurance service and 61 years of age."

The judges propose that the Constitutional Court order the suspension of the execution of the decision of SS until the final decision.

The Council had previously noted the termination of office for 22 judges at the initiative of the then member of the Judicial Council, Vladimir Novović, who in the meantime was elected as the chief special prosecutor and left the SS.

In the initiative submitted to the Constitutional Court by 11 judges, it is reminded that any direct or indirect discrimination is prohibited, that the Constitution stipulates that everyone is equal before the law, and that the equality of women and men is guaranteed.

According to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, it is recalled that "the enjoyment of every right provided for by law must be ensured without discrimination on any basis, such as gender, etc. and that no one may be discriminated against by a public body on any basis".

The former judges believe that the provision of the article of the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance, on the basis of which their office was terminated, contradicts those provisions and international agreements.

And "waiting mothers"

The Constitutional Court did not have the necessary majority, four votes, to evaluate the constitutionality of the law on the basis of which mothers with three children are entitled to benefits. Previously, such a provision of the Law on Social Security, the "Law on Mothers", was declared unconstitutional, but the new government adopted the Proposal for a Law on the Compensation of Former Benefit Beneficiaries with Three or More Children, which foresees the introduction of lifetime compensation for former benefit beneficiaries who exercised that right in 2015 , according to the law that the Constitutional Court put out of force.