The Parliament of Montenegro could be involved in solving the problem through the competent committee Miraš Miketić from Canada that arose because in his case the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution differently.
Miketić told "Vijesta" that he expects this from the Assembly, given that for 16 years he has not been able to resolve the court dispute related to the residential building in Pržno.
After the judgments of the Basic Court in Kotor, the High Court and the Supreme Court, he wrote four constitutional appeals, which the Constitutional Court each time accepted and annulled the judgments of the Supreme Court and sent them back for retrial. The Supreme Court made the same decisions in repeated proceedings.
"The Constitutional Court also accepted the fourth appeal, which is now with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not make a decision for two years, and it decided on the third in three days," said Miketić.
In 2006, a business partner from Serbia filed a lawsuit against Miketić, demanding that his right of ownership be recognized over a third of the building in Pržno, referring to, as Miketić says, an unsigned protocol as a joint construction contract. That right was recognized by the lower courts and the Supreme Court.
She was at the head of the Supreme Court Vesna Medenica, until the end of 2020 when she resigned, following public pressure due to a disputed third term.
Medenica was arrested in April of this year on suspicion of creating a criminal organization, receiving bribes, illegal influence and inducing illegal influence, abuse of official position...
Miketić sent the petition, as an initiative to amend the Law on Courts, to the Assembly at the end of 2020 and in June last year.
In the answer of the former General Secretary of the Assembly Aleksandar Jovićević, from December 14, 2020, it was stated that according to Article 77 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court is obliged to respect the legal reasons of the Constitutional Court expressed in its decision and to decide in a retrial within a reasonable time.
"The problem was caused by the fact that the Supreme Court judged in the retrial the same way as in the annulled decision. The question arises whether the Supreme Court is bound "de lege lata" by the decision of the Constitutional Court because the decision of the Constitutional Court is not stated as a source of law on the basis of which the courts judge or the decision should be understood in the sense that the Supreme Court must apply the Constitution and laws in accordance with the meaning it is given to them by the Constitutional Court in the decisions it makes in the constitutional appeal. This would mean that the Supreme Court is obliged to judge on the basis of the Constitution and the law and as interpreted by the Constitutional Court", stated Jovićević.
As he added, the problem of the "binding" of the courts for annulment decisions of the Constitutional Court takes on a special meaning in the light of the fact that the Constitutional Court has only cassatory powers on a constitutional appeal, that it cannot change the contested decision, but only annul it.
Precisely because of this, as he explained, solutions should be considered that would prevent or overcome "blockades" that could possibly occur if the Supreme Court were to persist in its positions that would not coincide with the positions of the Constitutional Court.
"Given the possible legal uncertainty that arises because the Constitutional Court, on the one hand, and the Supreme Court, on the other hand, interpret the Constitution and relevant laws differently, the Parliament of Montenegro could use its powers as the highest legislative body and legally regulate the legal issue that causes controversy in practice and calls into question legal certainty. It should be expected that one of the proposers authorized by the Constitution (Government, MP...) will recognize the importance of the issues you raised. Therefore, your petition as an initiative for a possible amendment or amendment of the Law on Courts will be forwarded to the competent Committee for Political System, Judiciary and Administration", wrote Jovićević.
Current General Secretary of the Assembly Aleksandar Klaric stated in a letter to Miketić that his petition was forwarded to the Committee for Political System, Judiciary and Administration on June 11 last year.
Bonus video:
