The Constitutional Court of Montenegro organized a two-day professional training for advisors of that court, dedicated to the methodology of constitutional court decision-making and the right to a reasoned court decision.
The Constitutional Court announced that they organized the training in cooperation with the AIRE Center's Western Balkans Program and with the support of the British Embassy in Podgorica.
"The focus of the training was on one of the key issues of contemporary constitutional justice - the way in which courts formulate legal analysis and justify their decisions in accordance with European standards of human rights protection," the statement said.
The President of the Constitutional Court, Snežana Armenko, emphasized the importance of regional judicial dialogue and the exchange of legal experiences.
She said they were pleased to host an expert from Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), who has many years of experience.
"The exchange of practical experiences and approaches to constitutional court decision-making is of great benefit," said Armenko.
The statement states that the training was led by former registrar of the Constitutional Court of BiH and consultant of the AIRE Center, Zvonko Mijan, who used examples from regional constitutional court practice and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
It is added that the training covered practical aspects of constitutional court decision-making, including identifying a constitutional issue, distinguishing the issue of admissibility from the merits, choosing the appropriate standard of review, and structuring reasoning in a manner that allows for a clear and verifiable connection between the established factual situation, the applicable law, and the Court's decision.
"Particular attention was paid to the right to a reasoned court decision as an integral part of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights," the statement said.
Mijan said that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights sets clear requirements for domestic courts, especially regarding the obligation to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for their decisions, as well as to state their position on the decisive arguments of the parties.
"Constitutional court decision-making requires a clear and structured methodology, which allows the application of these standards to be recognized and verified in the reasoning of each decision," Mijan pointed out.
Representatives of the AIRE Center emphasized that improving the quality of judicial reasoning is one of the key areas of their work, aimed at strengthening the effective implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights at the national level.
The Head of Strategic Engagement and Legal Affairs at the AIRE Center, Martina Raguž, said that the European Convention on Human Rights is primarily applied before domestic courts.
"When courts clearly and in accordance with Strasbourg standards explain their decisions, effective protection of human rights is ensured at the national level and the need for subsequent intervention by the European Court of Human Rights is reduced," said Raguž.
The Constitutional Court's statement states that with the increasing number of cases and heightened public interest, methodological consistency and well-reasoned decisions remain essential for legal certainty, institutional credibility and the rule of law.
Bonus video:
