N6.T4 – Prime Minister Requests Urgent Opinion from Venice Commission on the Termination of Judge Dragana Đuranović
HRA NEWSLETTER 6 – TOPIC 4
On March 26, Prime Minister Milojko Spajić submitted a request to the Venice Commission for an urgent opinion and recommendations concerning the case of former Constitutional Court judge Dragana Đuranović. Her term was terminated by a decision of the Montenegrin Parliament in late December 2024.
This request follows an agreement signed on March 15 by the Prime Minister and members of the opposition, who had previously boycotted parliamentary proceedings. The agreement was mediated by the European Union Delegation and aims to address the ongoing parliamentary crisis. Part of the agreement includes seeking the Venice Commission’s assistance to clarify potential dilemmas within Montenegro’s constitutional and legal frameworks.
Key Questions Posed to the Venice Commission
In his request, the Prime Minister included arguments from both the government and the opposition to support their perspectives. The following questions were presented to the Venice Commission:
In the Government’s Inquiry
Formulated by Justice Minister Bojan Božović, the government seeks clarification on the following question:
– “Does the function of a Constitutional Court judge terminate when the retirement conditions outlined in Article 154, paragraph 1 of the Constitution are met, even if the Constitutional Court does not officially determine the fulfillment of these conditions during its session as stated in Article 154, paragraph 3? In other words, is the determination of the reason for termination at a Constitutional Court session merely declarative, and did the Constitutional Committee exceed its jurisdiction by concluding, based on a letter from the President of the Constitutional Court regarding the age and years of service of all judges, that Judge Đuranović’s retirement conditions had been satisfied?”
The opposition, represented by university professor Miloš Vukčević, sought answers to the following questions:
– “Was Article 154, paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Montenegro violated? Is the action of the Constitutional Committee of the Montenegrin Parliament and the conclusion regarding Judge Đuranović’s retirement formally unconstitutional? Additionally, is the act of the President of the Montenegrin Parliament, which confirmed this decision, unconstitutional?”
Under the agreement signed between Prime Minister Milojko Spajić and the opposition, both parties have committed to taking all necessary steps to fully implement the Venice Commission’s forthcoming opinion. In the meantime, procedures for selecting a new Constitutional Court judge, based on the competition announced by the Constitutional Committee, will be temporarily suspended until the opinion is received.
Expert Perspective
Vesna Simović-Zvicer, a Professor of Labor Law at the University of Montenegro and former President of the Judicial Council, stated in an interview on Radio Montenegro’s “Link” show that there is no doubt Judge Dragana Đuranović met the requirements for retirement. However, she emphasized that the appropriate procedures were not followed in her case.
“The proper procedure was not adhered to because this decision should have been made by the Constitutional Court itself, such as it is, with the participation of those whose rights are at stake. On the other hand, the fact that Judge Đuranović met the conditions for retirement is indisputable. I found it very interesting how these questions were framed. I believe both colleagues Vukčević and Božović are aware that the conditions for Judge Đuranović’s retirement have been met, and there should be no dispute regarding that,” stated Simović-Zvicer.
Dr. Zoran Ivošević, a Professor of Labor Law and retired judge of the Supreme Court of Serbia, previously shared similar views in response to a request from the Human Rights Action organization. He affirmed that Judge Đuranović’s judicial term should conclude in line with the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance, same as other two Constitutional Court judges who met the retirement conditions.
In light of these expert opinions, the Human Rights Action plans to forward this information to the European Commission’s rapporteurs.
English