The adoption of amendments to the Internal Trade Act has repeated the same constitutional and legal shortcomings that led the Constitutional Court to declare the previous provision banning shops from operating on Sundays unconstitutional, at the initiative of the Employers' Union of Montenegro (UPCG), the organization announced.
The MEF said that when re-standardizing, the parliament did not take into account the recommendation of the Social Council - a body established by the Constitution, responsible for harmonizing issues of importance to employees and employers, which consists of representatives of the Government, representative trade unions and representative employers' organizations.
"It was through this body that a tripartite compromise was reached that provided for the possibility of working on Sundays exclusively during the summer and winter tourist seasons, for a total of five months, a mandatory following weekend off for employees who work on Sundays, as well as an 80 percent increase in the daily wage. This ensured a realistic balance between the protection of workers' rights and the needs of the economy," the statement said.
Ignoring this compromise means, as assessed, ignoring social dialogue as a constitutional category and a mechanism for harmonizing conflicting interests in society.
"It is particularly problematic that relevant economic parameters were not presented when making the changes. The Montenegrin economy is extremely seasonal, and trade is complementary to tourism - a strategic industry on which budget revenues and overall economic activity depend to a significant extent," said the MEF.
On Monday, they stated, the amendments adopted again directly affect the competitiveness of the domestic tourism offer, especially in the context of regional competition, the business environment and fiscal flows.
"Additionally worrying is the fact that the reasons for unconstitutionality, which the Constitutional Court clearly pointed out, have not been removed, but rather the same norm has been essentially repeated. Such an approach calls into question the principle of the rule of law and the obligation to respect the decisions of the Constitutional Court. Decisions of the highest judicial instance for the protection of constitutionality are not a matter of political will, but of constitutional obligations," said the MEF.
In a democratic order based on the separation of powers, the legislative branch has the right to pass laws, but also a constitutional obligation to respect the limits set by the Constitution and the decisions of the Constitutional Court as the ultimate guardian of constitutionality.
"The deliberate repetition of a norm that has already been determined to be unconstitutional, while simultaneously ignoring the Social Council as a constitutional category and an institutional mechanism for harmonizing interests, represents a serious test of the maturity of our legal system. The responsibility of all public office holders must be to preserve the rule of law, institutional balance and legal certainty, and not to relativize them," the statement concludes.
Bonus video:
