Proposed changes to the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (PiO) are problematic from the aspect of constitutionality and legality, as it is a potentially discriminatory and anti-systemic measure, Social Democrat MP Boris Mugoša said.
He said at a press conference in the Parliament that the question arises why only judges of the Constitutional Court should acquire the right to a pension two years after all citizens and why judges of that and not regular courts.
Mugoša believes that the announced changes potentially legitimize political influence.
He said that in December of last year, the Constitutional Court informed the Assembly that the term of office of the President of the Constitutional Court, Milorad Gogić, was ending, referring to the Labor Law.
"Where does it say that on May 27, Gogić's employment will end by force under the Labor Law and thus he will be entitled to an old-age pension. Acquiring the right to an old-age pension is defined in the Constitution as a condition for the termination of the office of a judge of the Constitutional Court," stated Mugoša.
He pointed out that based on that, the Constitutional Committee issued a call for the election of a member of the Constitutional Court to replace Gogić in January, which lasted for a month.
"On March 5, the Constitutional Committee states that the candidates have applied and forms a commission. "From then until today, the commission does not determine whether the candidates meet the conditions of the public invitation," said Mugoša.
He said that after that, on March 20, the MPs proposed amendments to the Law on the Constitutional Court, with which they want to extend the mandate of the President of the Constitutional Court for a year one month before the end of his mandate.
"Also for the judges whose mandate expires before the end of the year and acquire the right to a pension, they too should be extended for a certain period of time," said Mugoša.
He recalled that after that, when it was clear that the changes were unconstitutional, the deputies withdrew the amendments to the Law on the Constitutional Court and proposed that seven days before the plenum, the Law on PIO be amended without a public hearing.
Mugoša stated that this law only applies to judges of the Constitutional Court who receive their pension at the age of 67, unlike all other citizens who exercise this right at the age of 65.
According to him, that normative solution is problematic from the aspect of constitutionality, that is, legality, because it is a potentially discriminatory and anti-systemic measure.
"The question arises as to why only judges of the Constitutional Court should acquire the right to a pension two years after all other citizens, and not judges of regular courts," added Mugoša.
He said that it was an "unprecedented legal stunt", with the aim of forcibly extending the mandate of some judges and added that the arguments presented by colleagues from the parliamentary majority were not founded.
"In this way, when at the end of the mandate of judges, the mandate is extended immediately by changes in the law, do not be surprised when it is said that a huge space for political influence with outlines of political corruption opens up," said Mugoša.
He said that a serious and broader, but expert discussion should be held on the issue of acquiring the right to old-age pension for both judges and prosecutors, which will result in the adoption of a systemic law.
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
