The request that should be sent to the Venice Commission, which relates to the Parliament's actions in the event of the retirement of Constitutional Court judge Dragana Đuranović, has not yet been agreed upon, and it is possible that this will happen tomorrow (Monday, March 24).
This was stated in the show Nedjelja u retrovizoru on Vijesti Television by Minister of Justice Bojan Božović, who was delegated by the parliamentary majority to coordinate the text of the letter that will be sent to the Venice Commission on their behalf with lawyer Miloš Vukčević, who was delegated by the opposition.
Božović also said that during this week there were difficulties in creating the text of the request, so, as things stand now, both the government and the opposition will write the questions in their own way and all of that, along with certain attachments, will be sent to the Venetians.
Božović also said that they expect the Venice Commission to send its opinion within a month.
"It is quite natural that difficulties exist and it is quite natural since we are looking at this situation from different angles. My colleagues from the opposition are questioning the formal legal deficiency of not holding a session of the Constitutional Court, on the basis of which, according to their interpretation, the Constitutional Committee should have been informed. On the other hand, we see this as an opportunity and the letter itself to the Venice Commission to raise the issue of a substantive-legal nature, but also other matters related to the famous Article 154 of the Constitution of Montenegro, which refers to the dismissal of judges of the Constitutional Court, and that this letter contains several questions. It is difficult to expect that we will agree completely word for word on one issue. We are currently closest to the option, given that the letter will be sent by the Prime Minister, that the letter contains a proposed question from the opposition and proposed questions, one or more questions from the government, and that these questions within the same question with attachments be submitted to the Venice Commission, I hope maybe as early as tomorrow," said Božović.
On December 17 last year, the Parliament declared the termination of Đuranović's office, with strong opposition from the opposition. These parties prevented the sessions from being held, claiming that the Constitution had been violated because, without the mandatory notification of the Constitutional Court, the termination of Đuranović's judicial office was declared due to the attainment of the conditions for retirement under the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (PIO). The judges of the Constitutional Court, by a majority vote, took the position that they would retire in accordance with the Labor Law, and not under the PIO regulation, like judges of other courts.
Disputes among lawyers about the law under which Constitutional Court judges should retire have been going on for several years. According to the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance, the retirement age is 65 years of age and at least 15 years of insurance service, or when a person reaches 40 years of insurance service and 61 years of age. According to the Labor Law, employment ends by force of law when an employee reaches 66 years of age and at least 15 years of insurance service.
In February of this year, Đuranović filed a lawsuit against the state, or rather the Parliament, with the Basic Court in Podgorica because it determined that her judicial function had been terminated pursuant to the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance (PIO), and not pursuant to the Labor Law.
The Office of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests Bojana Ćirović, who represents the state, that is, the parliament, in the dispute that Đuranović initiated against him due to the fact that he had determined that her judicial function had been terminated, told "Vijesti" in February that Đuranović could not be reinstated because the conditions for determining the interim measure she requested were not met.
DON'T MISS IT
Bonus video:
