Đuranović and Šćepanović point to violations of the rule of law, unequal legal protection, discrimination…

Judges of the Constitutional Court, Dragana Đuranović and Budimir Šćepanović, issued an opinion on the decision of their colleagues, which on April 26 rejected the proposal to establish the unconstitutionality of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Freedom of Religion or Belief and the Legal Status of Religious Communities – primarily because they believe that in this case “primarily, it raises the question of the constitutionality” of the changes to the Law, specifically because the Assembly did not “have the majority prescribed by the Constitution and the Rules of Procedure for decision-making”, therefore “neither for the adoption, i.e. the passing of any legal act, nor the Law in question”.

The decision and separate opinion of Judges Đuranović and Šćepanović were published on the website of the Constitutional Court today.

In addition to the majority of judges rejecting the proposal to determine the unconstitutionality of the Law on Amendments to the Law on Freedom of Religion or Belief and the Legal Status of Religious Communities, at the session on April 26, they decided not to “accept initiatives to initiate proceedings for the constitutionality assessment of the provisions of Art. 5, 7 and 19 of the same law”, and that the “request for suspension of execution of the provisions of Art. 5, 7 and 19, as well as the actions taken based on the contested provisions of Article 7 of the same law”.

Unconstitutional adoption of amendments to the Law

Judges Đuranović and Šćepanović, in a separate opinion, pointed to the fact that at the session of the Parliament of Montenegro on December 28, 2020 – when the Law on Amendments to the Law on Freedom of Religion or Belief and the Legal Status of Religious Communities was adopted for the first time – there was no of the prescribed majority for decision-making, because “after the resignation of the previous MP Flilip Adžić, the parliamentary majority had only 39 MPs present at the session”.

• …as the Assembly, in accordance with the provisions of Article 83, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, has 81 deputies and as, in accordance with the provisions of Article 91, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, the Assembly decides by majority vote of the deputies present at a session attended by more than half of all deputies, if the Constitution was not determined otherwise (and in this particular case it was not), the Assembly could not validly decide on that, nor pass the Law on Amendments to the Law on Freedom of Religion or Belief and the Legal Status of Religious Communities – they are categorical. ….