The dispute between the Movement for Pljevlja and the New Serbian Democracy, worth more than 158 thousand euros, will be resolved by the Constitutional Court, after the Supreme Court made two diametrically opposed decisions on the same legal matter.
Movement for Pljevlja, of which he is the president Novica Stanić, filed an appeal with the Constitutional Court, after the Supreme Court annulled its earlier verdict in favor of the Movement for Pljevlja and returned the proceedings to the first-instance court.
In this way, according to the Movement, their right to a fair trial was violated and they propose to the Constitutional Court to cancel the decision of the Supreme Court and return the case for a new procedure and decision.
The Movement for Pljevlja is conducting proceedings against the New Serbian Democracy, due to non-compliance with the coalition agreement on joint participation in the 2016 elections.
"Vijesti" previously announced that based on the main debt for unpaid budget funds based on one parliamentary mandate for the period from November 8, 2016 to September 30, 2019, the New Serbian Democracy had to pay the Movement 158.792 euros, with legal interest from October 22, 2019 until the final payment and on account of the overdue interest calculated until October 21, 2019, the amount of 20.597 euros.
The basic court in Podgorica then obliged Nova to pay the Movement 3.367 euros for the costs of the proceedings.
On September 19, 2016, Mandić and Stanić signed a coalition agreement on joint participation in the parliamentary elections, in which, in Article 5, Nova "unceremoniously undertakes to transfer the corresponding budget funds based on one parliamentary term per month to the Movement for Pljevlja by the end of the month for the previous month during duration of the mandate of the newly elected Assembly".
After Nova did not pay the money, the Movement filed a lawsuit, and the Basic and High Courts ruled in Nova's favor for the first time. The Movement for Pljevlja appealed the verdict, which was accepted by the Supreme Court, considering that the signed Agreement was legally unquestionable.
After the Supreme Court's position, the lower courts ruled in favor of the Movement for Pljevlja, so Nova had to pay about 180.000 euros to the Movement's account. Upon that verdict, Nova filed a review with the Supreme Court, which on March 20 of this year adopted and annulled the earlier verdict and sent the case back to the first-instance court for a retrial.
If the court ruled in Nova's favor in the repeated proceedings, the Movement for Pljevlja would have to return the money to its former coalition partners.
In the meantime, the Movement for Pljevlja has filed another lawsuit on the same basis, demanding from Nova an additional payment of 50.000 euros for the period from September 30, 2019 to September 30, 2020.
"Illegal Decision"
In the constitutional appeal, which he submitted on behalf of the Movement Petar Drobnjak, a lawyer from Bijelo Polje, it is stated that the Supreme Court "made a decision with a different attitude expressed in relation to its earlier decision of May 28, 2021".
He states that this is illegal, "especially since the Supreme Court in the last decision addressed the legal validity of the agreement, the content of which the same court, a few years earlier, found to be unquestionable".
This decision of the Supreme Court, according to the applicants of the constitutional appeal, violated legal certainty, because when passing the final verdict on October 25, 10, the court was "bound by Article 2021 of the Civil Procedure Act".
"Which stipulates: 'The court to which the case was sent back for retrial is bound in that case by the legal understanding on which the decision of the revision court is based, which annulled the second-instance verdict, that is, which annulled the second-instance and first-instance verdicts".
"As even now the decision of the Supreme Court Rev. no. 530/22 of 20 March 3 refers to the case P. no. 2024/2513, it is unclear at all how the first instance court could be bound by two legal understandings of it (the Supreme ) of the court...", reads the constitutional appeal.
They remind that the Supreme Court stated in its first decision that "the said agreement was concluded in writing, certified and signed by authorized persons of the parties, which is why its legal validity is unquestionable".
"Now the opposite reasoning of the highest instance court is unclear, because nothing factual or legal changed between the adoption of these two decisions. The procedure for legal remedies is decisive for the elimination of irregularities committed by the lower courts, so the entire procedure is relevant for assessing whether the right to a fair trial has been respected (EHCR Barbera, Messeque and Jabardo judgment v Spain from 1988). In view of the above, we believe that in the new review procedure, almost all the principles of the civil procedure, provided for by the ZPP and guaranteed in Art. 6 (1) ECHR", the appeal states.
In the first decision, the Supreme Court of Montenegro states that the legal validity of the Agreement between the Movement for Pljevlja and the New Serbian Democracy is unquestionable, and later the same court, based on allegedly the same factual situation, in the same case, made a decision in which it "even disputes the content of the Agreement".
"The same court cannot give a different interpretation of the same evidence-agreement twice, especially since in the first decision it stated that its content and legal validity are unquestionable, and that such action does not lead to a violation of the right to legal certainty as part of the right to a fair trial. All this especially for the reason that the reasons that are now listed as rescinding (that they should be re-examined) were essentially appreciated in the earlier review procedure, given that the court of appeals in the judgment P. no. 5596/2018 appreciated them as reasons for rejecting the claim request, but after the passing of that and the subsequent decision of the High Court in Bijelo Polje, Gž. no. 911/20, the Supreme Court, appreciating all that, annulled the lower-level judgments and took the position and gave the opinion that the agreement cannot be interpreted in that way (but according to the provisions of the ZOO- and the principles of conscientiousness and honesty)", it is written in the constitutional appeal.
They also state that Article 11 of the Law on the Financing of Political Entities and Election Campaigns regulates the distribution of budget funds, so paragraph 5 "prescribes that the funds received by political entities that participated in the elections as a coalition, that is, a group of voters, are distributed in accordance with the agreement, i.e. the act on the formation of those political entities, which indicates that the conclusion of a disputed agreement between litigants is not contrary to compulsory regulations, but on the contrary, the Law on the Financing of Political Entities and Election Campaigns gives political parties the freedom to distribute the funds they receive from public revenues by agreement ".
They claim that because of this behavior of the courts, the Movement for Pljevlja is currently deprived of its property - funds that the defendant was obliged to pay to it under the Agreement.
"So, in the legal system of Montenegro, there cannot be two decisions of the highest court instance with different legal conclusions, so the (second) decision of the Supreme Court of Montenegro Rev. no. 5320/22 violated the right to a fair trial, which is guaranteed by the provisions of Art. . 32 of the Constitution of Montenegro and Article 6 of the ECHR, and Articles 1 and 58 of the Constitution and Articles 8 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention of March 1, 20 and Article 3 of the Protocol to the Convention of November 1952, 12 ECHR, therefore, we suggest that it be established that the right to a fair trial, equality before the court was violated by the adoption of such a decision, and that the decision of the Supreme Court of Montenegro Rev. no. retrial and decision-making (although the same is now in progress before the Basic Court in Podgorica)," the appeal states.
Bonus video:
