Montenegro also celebrated 800 years since the adoption of the Great Charter of Liberties (Magna Carta Libertatum), which established the principle that every government must be bound by law and which adoption marked the beginning of the historic journey of establishing the rule of law.

Montenegro, however, welcomes this anniversary with a Constitutional Court working at full capacity although its election has been challenged as unconstitutional 18 months ago.

Since December 2013, when the current composition of the Constitutional Court has been elected, the Court rendered more than 850 decisions, which remain in the shadow of doubt on the disputed legitimacy of judges that rendered these decisions.

The Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms, Mr. Šućko Baković, filed on 15 November 2013 a proposal for review of the constitutionality of the Constitutional Act for the implementation of amendments to the Constitution and the Law on the Constitutional Court, arguing that the mandates of the former composition judges were terminated unconstitutionally by prescribing reasons for termination of their functions by an act of lower legal force, i.e. a law, regardless of the conditions prescribed by the Constitution. The same initiative for constitutional review has been filed by attorneys at law Orle Marković and Predrag Mugoša. The Court is obliged to decide on the proposal filed by the Ombudsman.

In addition, the Venice Commission in its Opinion on adopted amendments to the Constitution of Montenegro expressed regret that the Montenegrin authorities have not allowed the Constitutional Court judges to remain in office until the end of their mandate.

HRA urged in early 2014 the Constitutional Court president, Ms Desanka Lopičić, that the Constitutional Court first decides on its own legitimacy, i.e. on the constitutionality of the election of its members before making any other decisions. HRA repeated this appeal in April 2015, but in vain.

HRA regrets that the celebration of 800 years of Magna Carta Libertatum in the Parliament of Montenegro remained without the opportunity for discussion, in which we wanted to discuss the issue of constitutionality – the legitimacy of the election of judges of the Constitutional Court, and ask Ms Lopičić to explain what could have made the Constitutional Court judges to opt for neglecting deciding on the constitutionality of their own election before deciding on the constitutionality and legality of anything else?

HRA team