The Deputy Prime Minister for the Political System, Justice and Anti-Corruption, Momo Koprivica, believes that the opposition has three political goals that "can be very dangerous for society."
He said this in the show "Sunday in the rearview mirror" on TV Vijesti, commenting on the events in the Parliament in connection with the Constitutional Court. This week, the Parliamentary Constitutional Committee noted that the conditions for the retirement of three of the six judges of the Constitutional Court have been met, and made a decision to advertise for the selection of new ones. On the basis of that decision, the Assembly noted the termination of the mandate of judge Dragana Đuranović on the same day. The opposition believes that the members of the government have taken over the powers of the Constitutional Court and that a "constitutional coup" has taken place.
"I would say that the main political goals of the opposition, apart from sending a message of instability, are three things that can be very dangerous for society. The first is the return of judges and prosecutors from the old system, whose functions have legally ceased, and who filed lawsuits and requests for examination of court decisions, and they were rejected by the Administrative Court and the Supreme Court. And then through constitutional appeals, they also appealed to the Constitutional Court, in which, among other things, certain persons want whose office has ceased by force of the Constitution, they should decide on them, and they are in the same situation, and the length of their office depends on the resolution of that issue, which is a conflict of interest," said Koprivica.
Another goal, he claims, is to block election processes through the Constitutional Court, "as is the case in Kotor, where the same judges from 2018 to this year make one decision on the same matter, and in Kotor they act completely differently".
"Third, rescuing certain members of organized criminal groups from the measures imposed on them by the authorities of the rule of law. I am referring here first of all to many of those examples, through constitutional appeals to abolish detention. The Constitutional Court has the right to abolish detention. But it is symptomatic if in the case of Petr The Constitutional Court rejected Lazović's constitutional appeal in October 2022 and June 2023, and in the same matter terminated his detention on March 27, 2024. At the same time, he did not explain why deviated from the previous position and what he adhered to in the previous two decisions, which were the prosecutor's statements that the amount of the sentence could be a motive for escape, now they evaluate it in their third decision, in the same matter, of the same applicant, as superficial and stereotypical are serious and symptomatic things, and this happens often. These three judges, whose duties are terminated by force of the Constitution, also took part in making those decisions. That was the majority for the abolition of detention," he says Deputy Prime Minister.
The editor and presenter of the show, Tatjana Ašanin, asked Koprivica whether parliamentary events were guided by political, or party interests of the government and the opposition, or whether the actors were guided by state and legal interests.
"If the state's interest had been in the first place for everyone at the time, we would not have come to this. It would not be good to deal only with the consequence, but also to deal with the cause... The Constitution has been blocked for years, because a number of people , and this escalated at the session of the Constitutional Court on June 27 of this year, a number of judges took it upon themselves to decide for themselves on behalf of the state," he said.
"Judges were in a conflict of interest, the Constitutional Court tried to block the Assembly"
Koprivica assessed that the Assembly and the Constitutional Committee did not violate the Constitution or the rules of the legal order.
"There are two key questions - whether the Assembly is competent to declare the termination of office of judges of the Constitutional Court and whether the decision of the Assembly is based on the fact that Mrs. Dragana Đuranović has acquired the condition for an old-age pension. The answer to both questions is affirmative. The Assembly is competent to stating the termination of office of the judges of the Constitutional Court, according to Article 82 of the Constitution of Montenegro. And secondly, it is evident and clear that Mrs. Dragana Đuranović has acquired the right to an old-age pension".
He says that the Constitutional Court tried to block the Assembly from exercising its competence, because of the session on June 27.
"The Assembly elects the judges of the Constitutional Court. In order for it to start the election process, it is necessary for the Constitutional Court to notify the Assembly, half a year in advance, that the conditions are met, and the President as the proposer. The session of the Constitutional Court, which is not discussed, was held on June 27. Action for Human Rights, News... but many others skip it, with due respect."
He said that at that session "there was a defeat of rights, morality and constitutionality".
"It happened that, on behalf of the state, certain judges, including Mrs. Đuranović, decided for themselves. Who has the privilege to decide for themselves on behalf of the state? That session is a pure conflict of interest, both according to the Law on the Constitutional Court and the Law on preventing corruption".
The editor of the show, Tatjana Ašanin, pointed out that in Article 154 of the Constitution, paragraph 4, it is written that the occurrence of reasons for termination of office or dismissal shall be determined by the Constitutional Court at its session and shall inform the Assembly accordingly. She also reminded that the President of the Constitutional Court, Snežana Armenko, submitted the judges' personal data to the President of the Constitutional Committee, Jelena Božović, who requested it, and that the session of the Constitutional Court was not held at which it should have been decided beforehand.
Koprivica says that the session was held, referring to the one in June. The editor of the show pointed out that the president of the court did not mention the June session as the reason why she did it, but that she submitted it with the knowledge of the judges and that she did the same as the judge Budimir Šćepanović did before her.
"That session was held on June 27. The judge in connection with which the decision was made participated in making that decision and thus the Constitutional Court was blocked. Both Mrs. Lopičić and Mr. Ščepanović, and the resolution of this issue depends on the length of their stay in that position. So, they have the most direct self-interest, which calls into question their impartiality," said Koprivica.
He said that there was an abuse of rights and powers, and "negation of the principle of impartiality, professional standards, ethical integrity and morality," as well as a violation of the oath they take under the Law on the Constitutional Court.
"The oath says that he will act honorably, conscientiously, justly, impartially, according to the Constitution and the law. Can someone, deciding about himself on behalf of the state, be impartial," asked Koprivica.
In the show, he showed the decision of the Supreme Court, based on the request for examination of the court decision initiated by the former judge of that court, Miraš Radović, as well as the decision in the procedure initiated by Hasnija Simonović.
"What is stated in the decisions of the Supreme Court, since even then, when the Judicial Council made a decision on the termination of office of judges, due to the fulfillment of the conditions for an old-age pension, and previously the presidents of the courts, just like now, the Constitutional Court did not want to inform the Judicial Council, and then the Judicial Council, despite the absence of a formal notification, made a decision on the termination of their functions, based on the indisputable facts that the condition for old-age pensions has occurred... I am quoting the decision of the highest court in Montenegro: "The absence of a formal notification in the specific case, by the Acting President of the Supreme Court, about the conditions for the termination of the judicial function in relation to the Prosecutor does not prevent the Judicial Council from making the disputed decision, since it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Defendant, in accordance with the constitutional powers, and in accordance with Article 105 to make a decision on the termination of the judge's office Therefore, everyone in our legal system, including the Judicial and Prosecutorial Council, the Administrative and Supreme Court, has no doubts whether the PIO Act or the Labor Act is applicable, because the conditions for pension are defined by the PIO Act. Only those whose function is in question in this case have a dilemma," said the Deputy Prime Minister.
"They were synchronized when they abolished the detention of criminals"
Koprivica said that the judges, who are subject to termination of office by force of the Constitution, "were perfectly synchronized in recent years when they abolished the detention of members of organized criminal groups, and you see that they are connected to different political structures."
"The court knows the law, they are obliged to know and they knew what their legal regulations are - both regarding exemptions and conflicts of interest. So there is no negligence, no justification, either by actual or legal error. There is direct responsibility for violating the regulations for what were working".
The opposition's claims are "nonsense"
The participants of the show, in which apart from Koprivica, lawyers Dragan Šoć, Veselin Radulović and Miloš Vukčević were guests, agree that the three judges, in accordance with the PIO Act, have acquired the condition for an old-age pension.
Koprivica says that the Assembly did not take responsibility from anyone.
He called "nonsense" the opposition's claims that the intention of the parliamentary majority is to rule without elections and to eventually make changes to the Law on Montenegrin Citizenship.
"The illegal composition of the court, in which judges sit who have no reason to be there, can be a serious violation of the regulations, for which lawsuits can be filed against the state," noted the Deputy Prime Minister.
He says he is a supporter of dialogue, "even though things are completely clear".
The government did not officially consider the information from the meeting between Spajić and Milatović
Koprivica said that he did not have complete information about what was discussed at the meeting on Friday evening by Prime Minister Milojko Spajić and Jakov Milatović.
"I think that regardless of their political or personal relations, it is good that the president of the state and the prime minister have good cooperation".
He also said that it is necessary to establish a functional relationship.
When asked if he was aware that there was even a conversation, he answered: "Yes, but I don't have complete information about the content and directions".
He believes that it is not correct to make public the contents of the conversations of other officials, but he clarified that the Government did not consider this information in any official form.
"I believe that society's goal is not to find out what happened in a conversation and how it went, but to see where it will come from."
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
