Vasilije Čarapić, the head of the parliamentary club Pokreta Evropa Sad (PES), said today that the law on the representative of Montenegro before the court in Strasbourg, whose adoption he proposed, would prevent that due to "administrative activities or omissions of the Minister of Justice or anyone else", there legal uncertainty in representing the state before Strasbourg.
At a press conference in the parliament, he said that Montenegro, as a member of the Council of Europe and a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, has an obligation to ensure respect for the rights prescribed by that act.
"By analyzing the existing solution, after we heard that the Administrative Court annulled the decision on the dismissal of the previous representative (Valentine Pavličić), we saw that the entire process concerning the representation of Montenegro before the European Court of Human Rights was regulated by a provision from 2006, and which was adopted on the basis of a law that is no longer valid. We believe that the constitutionality of such a decision is questionable and that, if the Administrative Court made a decision that the dismissal of the previous representative is illegal, all appointments based on that regulation are also illegal," Čarapić said. saying that voting on the proposed solution will increase legal certainty.
The day before yesterday, the Administrative Court announced that Pavličić was illegally dismissed from the position of protector before the court in Strasbourg. The court announced that the decision by which the termination of her mandate was illegal, and that it could not determine with certainty the reasons and legal basis for it (termination of mandate). She was dismissed in early February after the Government amended the Decree on the representative in December, limiting his mandate to a maximum of two four-year terms. The transitional and final provisions of the Regulation stipulated that Pavličić's mandate ends on the day of the election of a new representative. Katarina Peković was chosen as her successor.
The court pointed out that in Article 7 and 8 of the Regulation, as well as in the amendments to that document, the reasons for the termination of the representative's office are exhaustively stated - expiration of the mandate, resignation, fulfillment of the conditions for old-age pension, termination of citizenship and if the representative is sentenced to unconditional imprisonment. In the same articles, they say, the reasons for dismissal are unprofessional or negligent performance of the function, permanent loss of ability to do so, and when one of the other reasons occurs that makes the representative unworthy of the function.
"As the enacting clause of the disputed decision stated that the plaintiff's mandate ends due to the entry into force of the new decree on the representative, which cannot be a reason for the termination of the mandate, the Administrative Court found that there was a violation of the rules of procedure and from Article 22 paragraph 3 of the Law on Administrative Procedure , because the enacting terms of the decision must be complete and specific and must not cause doubt as to how the matter was resolved," said the Administrative Court.
Bonus video:
