President of the Minor Offences Court in Bijelo Polje Alija Beganović, Council of Europe expert Jovan Kojičić and a lawyer Nenad Djordjevic applied for two advertisements for the election of judges of the Constitutional Court, which were published by the Parliamentary Constitutional Committee and the Head of State Jakov Milatovic.
However, it is questionable whether these three candidates can remain in the race for positions in the Constitutional Court, since the law on that institution stipulates that the same person cannot apply for public calls from both proposers - the Constitutional Committee and the President of Montenegro.
Precisely because of this fact, the head of state will form a special commission whose task will be to determine whether the candidates' applications have been submitted in accordance with the Constitution, the Law on the Constitutional Court, and the published public call.
"Given the provision of Article 9, paragraph 4 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, which stipulates that the same person cannot apply for public invitations from both proposers, as well as the fact that the procedure for the election of two judges is underway following a public invitation from the second proposer (the Constitutional Committee), a special commission will determine whether any of the candidates who applied following the public invitation from the President of Montenegro also applied following the public invitation from the Constitutional Committee," reads a statement from Milatović's Public Relations Office.
The President, as announced by his Office, will interview all candidates who applied for (his prim. aut) the public call, and who meet the conditions for selection, "and based on evidence of meeting the conditions for selection and the results of interviews with the candidates, will draft a reasoned proposal for the election of a judge of the Constitutional Court."
In addition to Milatović, the Constitutional Committee should also be on the move, but its president Jelena Božović (New Serbian Democracy) did not respond to calls from "Vijesti" yesterday.
Yesterday, Milatović established a list of candidates for the election of one judge, which, in addition to Beganović, Kojičić and Đorđević, includes: Danilo Cupic, Dusko Jovovic, Mirjana Vučinić, Dejan Vuksic, Nataša Radonjić i Nikola Golubović.
On the other hand, in response to the Constitutional Committee's announcement for the selection of two judges, in addition to the three aforementioned lawyers, Marko Blagojevic, Goran Velimirović, Zoran Vukićević, Nerma Dobardzic, Muhamed Đokaj, Jovan Jovanovic, Sanja Maslenjak, Medina Musovic, Milva Prelevic i Mirjana Radovic.
At its session held on January 30, the Constitutional Committee formed a commission to determine whether the candidates' applications were submitted in accordance with the public call.
The Constitutional Court currently has five out of seven judges. The Constitutional Committee has announced advertisements for the selection of successors to the position. Milorad Gogić i Dragan Đuranović, and President Milatović's announcement for the selection of a judge to replace Budimir Šćepanović, who is still in the Constitutional Court, although, in accordance with the Pension and Disability Insurance Law (PIO), he has met the conditions for termination of his position.
According to the Constitution, the judges of the Constitutional Court, whose mandate lasts 12 years, are elected and dismissed by parliament - two judges at the proposal of the president and five at the proposal of a committee.
The opposition claims that the Constitution has been violated because the legislative chamber, without the mandatory notification of the Constitutional Court, decided in mid-December last year to declare Dragana Đuranović's judicial function in that court terminated, due to her qualifying for retirement under the Pension and Disability Insurance Act. They demanded that things be restored "to their previous state," saying that otherwise they would not allow the highest parliament to function.
On the other hand, the ruling majority responded that this was an attempt to keep "some of the party judges" in office who "unlock from prison cells those who have reached justice."
Bonus video:
