The Constitutional Court has established that the Supreme Court lacks the authority to dismiss claims related to fair trials based on the grounds of abuse of rights.

“Given the relevance and significance of the right to a timely trial, and in light of recent rulings, the Constitutional Court has affirmed constitutional protection for the right to a timely trial in instances where the Supreme Court rejects just satisfaction claims due to perceived abuse of rights. By annulling those Supreme Court decisions and remanding them for reconsideration, the Constitutional Court signaled that the Supreme Court had applied new rules and a decision-making approach not outlined in the Law on the Protection of the Right to a Trial Within a Reasonable Time or in the Civil Procedure Law,” stated the Constitutional Court.

They emphasize that despite clear provisions in the Law on the Protection of the Right to a Timely Trial, which governs claims for just satisfaction, the Supreme Court opted to interpret the Civil Procedure Law, particularly Article 8, which mentions the principles of conscientiousness and honesty. However, this does not pertain to rejection based on abuse in cases counter to that principle.

“The ground for rejection based on abuse of rights is not included in Article 267 of the Civil Procedure Code as a basis for dismissal, nor is it found in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention, under which only the ECtHR can dismiss a complaint due to abuse, following the procedural rules regarding complaint admissibility,” the Constitutional Court elaborated.

They remind that the principle of the rule of law and Article 6 of the Convention necessitate that the court reference a specific legal norm, ensuring that any legal basis for a decision is not arbitrary and remains relevant to the specific case, nor can its interpretation exceed linguistic framework.

“By acting in this manner, the Supreme Court of Montenegro has, through an arbitrary and broad interpretation of clear legal norms, which serve as specialized protection for the right guaranteed by Article 32 of the Constitution, effectively limited and denied the constitutional complainants their legally guaranteed rights,” the statement continued.

The Constitutional Court underscores the necessity for the Supreme Court to “avoid arbitrary conclusions” in each specific case to prevent future violations of the right to access judicial protection for a fair trial as guaranteed by Article 32 of the Constitution and Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention. They argue that such arbitrary conclusions diminish public trust in the judiciary and jeopardize legal certainty, a fundamental aspect of the rule of law, as established in Article 1 of the Constitution of Montenegro.

“Ultimately, when engaging in retrials, it is essential for the Supreme Court to issue decisions that uphold this constitutionally guaranteed right, which the Constitutional Court determined had been infringed upon in the annulled decisions, thereby mitigating the so-called ping-pong effect that extends the duration of proceedings, fosters legal uncertainty, and significantly burdens the national judiciary,” the statement noted.

The legal reasoning of the Constitutional Court and their decisions has received commendation from Katarina Andrić Manojlović, a former judge of both the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Serbia, and a consultant for the Council of Europe. “She highlighted that the reasoning reflects the standards of the European Court of Human Rights and exemplifies the principle of subsidiarity concerning the corrective and preventive role of the Constitutional Court in protecting human rights on a national level,” the institution remarked.

They highlight that within less than nine months, the Constitutional Court has resolved nearly 100 percent of cases older than three years and currently addresses constitutional appeals filed within the past three years, thus aligning with the standards of constitutional courts in neighboring countries. Additionally, the average duration of cases has been reduced to one year and eight months, a milestone since the establishment of constitutional appeals.

“During his visit on March 24 this year, the President of the European Court of Human Rights, Mr. Marko Bošnjak, commended the Constitutional Court for its impressive achievements within a brief period, particularly regarding the clearance of backlog cases,” the Constitutional Court concluded, reaffirming its commitment to efficient and transparent operations.

News