Yesterday, five judges of the Constitutional Court were against the initiation of the procedure for the evaluation of the constitutionality of the amendments to the Regulation on the representative of Montenegro before the European Court of Human Rights, which is why the decision was not made to consider the case.
According to "Vijesti" information, judges Snežana Armenko and Momirka Tešić were against the initiative at yesterday's session of the Constitutional Court, while Desanka Lopičić, Dragana Đuranović, Budimir Šćepanović, Milorad Gogić, as well as the recently elected judge of the Constitutional Court Faruk Resulbegović were against it.
The Constitutional Court will rule on the case again. That case was included in the priority list by the Constitutional Court a month ago.
"As the proposal of the judge-rapporteur did not receive the necessary majority, another judge will be appointed who will prepare the proposal of the decision, aligned with the opinion of the majority of judges, in accordance with Article 80 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court," the Constitutional Court announced after the session.
In Article 80 of the Rules of Procedure, it is written that if the proposal of the decision of the rapporteur judge does not receive the required majority of votes, the president of the court puts to a vote other proposals presented in the hearing. If the reporting judge does not accept the drafting of a new draft decision, aligned with the position of the majority of judges, the president instructs another judge to draft a draft decision in accordance with the position of the majority of judges, according to the Rules of Procedure.
The reporter judge in this case was Tešić, and the president of the court, according to "Vijesti" information, tasked Dragana Đuranović with drafting the second proposal.
Several initiatives were submitted to the Constitutional Court for the evaluation of the constitutionality of the amendments to the Regulation adopted by the Government at the end of last year, but they were combined into one case. By changing the Regulation, the Government dismissed Valentina Pavličić, the current representative before the court in Strasbourg, and instead appointed Katarina Peković without waiting for the Constitutional Court's ruling.
Pavličić, who also submitted an initiative to the Constitutional Court, told "Vijesta" that she will wait for the explanation of the Constitutional Court's decision and present it to the international court instances, which will give their legal judgment on the matter.
"From the really purely formal explanation published by the Constitutional Court on its website, I want to believe that the judges who had majority thinking guided the law, the Constitution and the practice of the constitutional courts of the region. On the contrary, if it is about anything else, and what is transmitted through the lay and professional public, then I can only say that it is a momentary victory of injustice, ignorance and personal interests", said Pavličić.
This week, she filed a lawsuit against the Government in the Administrative Court, in order to annul the decision on the termination of her mandate.
Lawyer Valentina Pavličić Mitar Šušić, who also submitted the initiative to the Constitutional Court, said that it is very indicative that in a case like this, which, in accordance with the practice of the Constitutional Court until now, should have been resolved simply, in a short period of time, the decision is made, i.e. does not pass, by overriding the judges.
"I really hope that the public will not be deprived of a meritorious decision, so that the initiative will be accepted and the constitutionality will be discussed, so let the court say whether it is constitutional or not and give an explanation, because it would be a shame if we miss hearing from colleagues from the Constitutional Court who are experienced lawyers, they are already about to retire, I guess, to hear the explanation of such a decision, so that we, the younger ones, can also learn something", Sušić told TV Vijesti.
He pointed out that he is afraid that this way of voting and over-voting the judge-rapporteur is a hint that the decision in this case will be made in accordance with the interests of the Government, constitutionality and legality. B. Ma.
Abandoned initiatives from several years ago
Yesterday, for procedural reasons, the Constitutional Court rejected the initiative to start the procedure for the evaluation of the constitutionality of the provisions of Article 38 paragraph 2 and Articles 62, 63 and 64 of the Law on Freedom of Religion or Belief and the Legal Status of Religious Communities, which was submitted in 2020, before the Law was amended and those provisions were deleted.
Those provisions related to the registration and property of religious communities on the territory of Montenegro, which should have belonged to the state, which led to protest litias organized by the Metropolis of Montenegro and the Littoral at the end of 2019 and during 2020.
The initiative to initiate the procedure for constitutional review of Article 2 paragraph 3 of the Law on Voters List, which was submitted in 2017, was also rejected.
Bonus video:
