Parliament re-adopts amendments to the Law on the Constitutional Court

The Parliament of Montenegro again adopted today amendments to the Law on the Constitutional Court, which President Jakov Milatović returned to the parliament for reconsideration.

41 MPs voted in favor of the amendments to the Law, 15 voted against, and there were no abstentions.

Parliament Speaker Andrija Mandić said that anyone who wishes to apply an additional legal remedy can contact the Constitutional Court to determine whether this law violates the Constitution or not.

The provision of Article 3 of the Law stipulates the possibility that a judge of the Constitutional Court, whose office has ceased due to fulfilling the conditions for old-age pension or expiration of the term, may continue to perform his/her office until the election of a new judge.

Milatović previously said that this provision is controversial from the aspect of compliance with Amendment XVI, paragraph 2 of the Constitution of Montenegro.

"With this amendment, the Constitution clearly and imperatively determines that the term of office of judges of the Constitutional Court lasts 12 years, leaving no basis for extending the term or for performing the function after its expiration," Milatović emphasized.

He stated that the provision of Article 3 of the adopted law allows a judge to continue working even after the constitutional deadline has expired.

"Thereby, the legislator completely deconstitutionalizes the cited constitutional provision and derogates from Article 145 of the Constitution of Montenegro, according to which every law must be in accordance with the Constitution," Milatović assessed.

He also said that the provision of Article 3 replaces the current Article 15 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of Montenegro, which is also questionable from the aspect of constitutionality.

"By comparing the previous norm, according to which the exercise of the function after the expiration of the mandate was limited to one year, and the new solution, according to which this possibility is unlimited in time (i.e. lasts until the election of a new judge), it can be concluded that the new article does not solve the existing problem, but on the contrary, it further complicates it," the explanation states.

According to Milatović, the provision of Article 3 of the adopted law contains linguistic and logical contradictions that call into question its applicability.