The Committee did not support Laković's amendments to the proposed changes to the Law on Internal Affairs.

The Parliamentary Committee for the Political System, Judiciary and Administration did not support any of the five amendments proposed by Europe Now Movement MP Miodrag Laković to the Bill on Amendments to the Law on Internal Affairs.

Yesterday, the government established 12 amendments to the bill, and the Parliament is expected to vote on the document tonight.

With the first amendment, Laković proposed changing the composition of the Commission for the Verification of Security Disturbances, by including one representative of the Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms and one representative nominated by the Bar Association. Such a solution, he explained, aims to strengthen the constitutionality, legality and transparency of the procedure for verifying security disturbances, as well as to improve public trust in the work of the Commission.

"The inclusion of representatives of multiple institutions provides an additional level of impartiality and objectivity in the decision-making process. In this way, Police Directorate officers are provided with fairer treatment, with clearly standardized mechanisms that ensure that the security interference verification process is justified and based on verifiable facts," Laković stated.

At the same time, as he said, the amendment retains the existing legal solution that prescribes a 90-day period in which the National Security Agency provides its opinion.

"In addition, this amendment introduces the obligation to inform candidates of the reasons on the basis of which the existence of a security impediment was determined, except in the part in which such notification could endanger national security. In this way, the right to information is strengthened while at the same time respecting the legitimate interests of protecting national security. The proposed solution establishes a balance between the needs of the security system and the protection of human rights, thus achieving a higher degree of legal certainty and justification of the security impediment verification procedure," Laković wrote.

In the second amendment, he proposed that, in Article 20, paragraph 5 be amended to read:

"A police officer shall be notified of the existence of a security threat, with the obligation to inform the police officer of the reasons, facts and evidence on the basis of which the existence of a security threat was determined, except to the extent that this would endanger national security."

"This amendment proposes the deletion of paragraph 2 of the Amendment Bill, thus retaining the existing legal solution. This ensures continuity in the current legal framework and avoids the introduction of norms that could lead to automatic and disproportionate consequences for the employment status of police officers," Laković stated.

"At the same time, the amendment changes paragraph 5, by introducing a clear obligation for the competent authority to, when informing a police officer, state the reasons, facts and evidence on the basis of which the existence of a security threat was established, except in the part in which such notification could endanger national security. This solution strengthens the transparency of the procedure and the right of the police officer to information and effective legal protection, while at the same time preserving the legitimate interests of protecting national security," he added in the explanation.

Laković proposed the deletion of Article 22 with the third amendment.

"This amendment proposes the deletion of the provision of the Bill on Amendments and Supplements which stipulates that the established existence of security obstacles does not constitute a serious breach of official duty, such as a disciplinary offence. This deletion maintains the current legal solution, thus ensuring continuity in the legal regulation of disciplinary liability of Police Directorate officers."

The PES deputy proposed the deletion of Article 24, paragraph 2, with the fourth amendment.

"This amendment proposes the deletion of paragraph 2 of the Bill, which prescribes the termination of employment by force of law in cases where the Commission for the Verification of Safety Disturbances determines the existence of safety disturbances, as well as in cases where a police officer arrives at work under the influence of alcohol or psychoactive substances, consumes them during working hours, or refuses to submit to testing for the presence of alcohol or psychoactive substances. The proposed deletion aims to maintain the existing legal solution according to which the aforementioned behaviors are treated as serious violations of work obligations, which are decided in disciplinary proceedings, while respecting the right to a fair trial," said Laković.

Prescribing termination of employment by force of law, as he said, represents an automatism that excludes an individual assessment of the specific circumstances of the case, the degree of responsibility and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

"Retaining the existing solution ensures proportionality between the violation of official duty and the consequences for the employment status of a police officer, as well as compliance with the constitutional principles of legal certainty and the right to an effective legal remedy. In this way, the integrity and security of the service, as well as the rights and dignity of police officers, are simultaneously protected, through the application of appropriate disciplinary measures within the framework of the prescribed procedure," he emphasized in the explanation.

Finally, Laković proposed in the fifth amendment that, in Article 26, the new Article 214a be amended to read:

"The provisions of this Law shall apply to persons for whom, in accordance with the Law on Internal Affairs ('Official Gazette of Montenegro', No. 70/21, 123/21, 3/23 and 84/24), it has been determined that there are security obstacles to further work, and for whom disciplinary proceedings have not been initiated by the date of entry into force of this Law. Disciplinary proceedings initiated in accordance with the Law on Internal Affairs ('Official Gazette of Montenegro', No. 70/21, 123/21, 3/23 and 84/24) due to the existence of security obstacles to further work, and which have not been concluded by a final decision by the date of entry into force, shall continue in accordance with the provisions of the law in force at the time the proceedings were initiated, unless the provisions of this Law are more favorable to the person against whom the proceedings are being conducted. The Commission for the Review of Security Obstacles shall, within 90 days from the date of entry into force of this Law, review all cases referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article and issue a new opinion. in accordance with the provisions of this law."

Laković explained that the amendment eliminates the automatic suspension of ongoing proceedings, which "represented the most serious problem of the proposal."

"Instead, it introduces a principle common in transitional legislation: ongoing proceedings continue under the previous law unless the new one is more favorable (analogy with the criminal law principle of lex mitior). For cases where proceedings have not even been initiated, the new provisions apply — which is logical because these situations are treated from scratch. In addition, a 90-day deadline is prescribed for the review of existing cases, thus preventing a legal vacuum," the MP wrote.