The opinion of the Venice Commission (VC) was more than clear. The Parliament of Montenegro violated the procedure suggesting there’s a need to get the information from the Constitutional Court over conditions for the termination of the term of office of judge Dragana Djuranovic. Therefore, article 154 paragraph 3 of the Constitution of Montenegro, regulating the above-mentioned procedure, as well as article 7 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, had been violated, a law professor and lawyer, Milos Vukcevic, told the CdM portal.
The draft opinion of the VC on the case of former judge Dragana Djuranovic notes the Parliament of Montenegro should have complied with the procedure requiring a formal notification from the Constitutional Court on the conditions for her termination of office in that body.
“Thus, the Venice Commission said ‘yes’ to the opposition’s question as to whether the action of the Constitutional Committee was contrary to the Constitution and whether the act of notifying the Speaker of the Parliament was formally unconstitutional, even though the VC emphasized that it is not within its jurisdiction to interpret national constitutional norms and disputed provisions of domestic legislation, nor to assess the constitutionality of specific procedures undertaken by the Parliament and the Constitutional Court,” Mr Vukcevic underlined in a statement for CdM.
He also pointed out he had noticed that the Commission did not tell whether the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance Fund or the Labor Law should have been applied in the specific situation, as that question falls under competence of the Constitutional Court, which is the last competent interpreter of the Constitution and the law, so the VC confirmed the Constitutional Court had the final word in terms of the interpretation of which law should be applied in cases of termination of office of judges of that court.
