The opposition asks the Venice Commission whether the Constitution was violated when determining the termination of Đuranović's office.

The opposition requested an answer from the Venice Commission on the question of whether Article 154, paragraph 3, of the Constitution of Montenegro has been violated, i.e. whether the actions of the Constitutional Committee and the conclusion on the retirement (fulfillment of the conditions for old-age pension) of Constitutional Court judge Dragana Đuranović are formally unconstitutional, and whether, therefore, the act of the statement of the President of Parliament is also unconstitutional.

The government and the opposition today agreed on the text of a letter in which they will seek the opinion of the Venice Commission regarding the termination of Đuranović's office, which includes two questions - one from the government and one from the opposition.

The text of the request was written on behalf of the government by Justice Minister Bojan Božović, and on behalf of the opposition by lawyer Miloš Vukčević.

"In the event of an indisputable occurrence of reasons for termination of office due to fulfillment of the conditions for old-age pension, pursuant to Article 154, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, does the office of a judge of the Constitutional Court cease even when the Constitutional Court does not establish the obvious fulfillment of the conditions for termination of office at a session of the Constitutional Court in accordance with Article 154, paragraph 3, or is the determination of the reasons for termination of office at a session of the Constitutional Court merely declarative in nature, and in this regard, did the Constitutional Committee act outside the scope of its jurisdiction when, based on a letter from the President of the Constitutional Court, in response to an inquiry about the age and seniority of all judges, it adopted the conclusion that in the case of Judge Đuranović, the reasons for termination of office due to fulfillment of the conditions for old-age pension have occurred?" is the question raised on behalf of the parliamentary majority.

Vukčević said that the text of the request seeking the opinion of the Venice Commission regarding the termination of Đuranović's office has finally been agreed upon and will be sent to the Venice Commission tomorrow, after it has been translated into English.

"The Venice Commission will be asked two questions, one on behalf of the parliamentary majority and one on behalf of the opposition. The opposition representatives expect the Venice Commission to answer whether Article 154, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Montenegro has been violated, i.e. whether the actions of the Constitutional Committee of the Parliament of Montenegro and the Conclusion on the retirement (fulfillment of the conditions for old-age pension) of Judge Đuranović are formally unconstitutional, and whether, therefore, the act of the President of the Parliament is also unconstitutional. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Danijel Živković and the opposition for the trust they have shown, as well as Minister Bogdan Božović for the good and intensive cooperation. After the request is submitted tomorrow, it is necessary to translate all the documentation that accompanied the case of the termination of the function of Judge Dragana Đuranović and submit it to the Venice Commission in a timely manner so that it can have access to the documentation that is important for giving its opinion. I expect the Venice Commission to issue an opinion on this legal matter as a matter of urgency," said Vukčević, a lawyer and full professor at Law school.