The former judge of the Constitutional Court, Dragana Đuranović, cannot be reinstated as the prerequisites for the interim measure she sought have not been satisfied.

This was communicated to “Vijesti” by the Office of the Protector of Property and Legal Interests. Bojan Ćirović, who represents the state and parliament in the dispute initiated by Đuranović, explained that she could not hold a judicial position anymore.

The Ombudsman’s Office, responding to the lawsuit, indicated that Đuranović held a public position which does not constitute a traditional employment relationship necessary for her reinstatement.

On February 12, Đuranović filed a lawsuit against the Assembly at the Basic Court in Podgorica. This lawsuit contested the Assembly’s determination that her judicial role was terminated in compliance with the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance (PIO), rather than through labor regulations.

She is asking the court to declare the Parliament’s statement and the Constitutional Committee’s conclusion regarding the termination of her role from December last year as “completely null and void,” seek a temporary measure to reinstate her, and assert that the Parliament “discriminated against her based on her age.”

The Legislative Chamber announced her retirement on December 17 amidst strong opposition. On the same day, the Constitutional Committee concluded that Đuranović met the requirements for retirement per the Pension and Disability Insurance Act. The judges of the Constitutional Court opted by majority vote to retire her according to labor regulations rather than the Pension and Disability Insurance Act, as was done for judges in other courts.

Yesterday, the Basic Court announced that on February 13, the acting judge forwarded Đuranović’s lawsuit and the request for a temporary measure to the Protector of Property and Legal Interests for review, which was received on February 17.

The Protector’s Office clarified that Đuranović was declared to have ceased her judicial function, which means that Article 290, item 7 of the Law on Enforcement and Security, stating the need for an employment relationship for reinstatement, does not apply to her.

This article allows for the securing of a non-monetary claim through various measures, particularly “returning an employee to work” (paragraph 7).

“In this specific instance, the plaintiff held a public position, not a standard employment relationship. According to Article 154, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, her role as a judge of the Constitutional Court concluded as she met the conditions for an old-age pension, determined solely by the provisions of the Pension and Disability Insurance Law. Consequently, reinstatement is unattainable,” said the Office of the Protector.

In line with Article 289, paragraph 1, a temporary measure can be issued to secure a non-monetary claim if the applicant has convincingly demonstrated that the claim exists and that there is a risk of it being thwarted or significantly hindered.

In her lawsuit, Đuranović asserts that the procedure to determine whether the conditions for terminating her office have been met, along with the acts affirming their alleged fulfillment, violate the Constitution, the Law on the Constitutional Court, and the parliamentary and Constitutional Court procedural rules.

She notes that the Constitutional Committee lacks the authority to ascertain if the conditions for judicial office termination were fulfilled due to eligibility for an old-age pension and claims it “unconstitutionally and unlawfully overstepped the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court by deliberating whether Labor Law or Pension and Disability Insurance Law applies to the termination of a judicial office.”

She contends that the Assembly’s announcement of her office termination is void because, as she alleges, the Committee’s conclusion is “unconstitutional, illegal, and null and void.”

Đuranović also emphasizes that during a parliamentary session where the Assembly Speaker Andrija Mandic declared her office termination, there was no vote on the Constitutional Committee’s conclusion, although the provisions of the Constitution and the Legislative House’s Rules of Procedure “clearly mandate that this conclusion must have been voted on, as the President of Parliament is not authorized to unilaterally decide on elections and dismissals.”

She believes she faced discrimination as the PIO Law was applied solely to her case, contrasting it with that of former judge Milorad Gogić, who retired under the Labor Law at age 66. She also mentioned the recent case of judge Budimir Šćepanović, who was determined to have met retirement conditions under the Labor Law by the Constitutional Court, which informed the proposer, the head of state, accordingly.

“There are judges in the Constitutional Court older than 65 with 40 years of service who continue in their roles. Throughout the 60-year history of the Constitutional Court, no judge was retired under the Pension and Disability Insurance Law; rather, it was conducted according to Labor Law after reaching the required age for employment termination,” stated Đuranović.

She also pointed out that from 2021 to the end of 2024, two judges’ offices ended when they turned 67 as per the then-active Labor Law, and three judges ceased at age 66 due to amendments to that regulation.

In this specific case, the plaintiff held a public position, which does not represent a classic employment relationship. In accordance with the provisions of Article 154, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, the plaintiff’s role as a judge of the Constitutional Court ceased because she met the conditions for an old-age pension, assessed strictly based on the Law on Pension and Disability Insurance. Thus, reinstatement to the function is not possible…,” stated the Office of the Protector.

Additionally, Đuranović claimed in her lawsuit that the Parliament acted “extremely quickly” to declare her resignation before she turned 65, “even by a day.” Đuranović celebrated her 65th birthday on December 18.

The opposition previously obstructed the Parliament’s activities late last year, calling for the annulment of the Constitutional Committee’s conclusion, asserting constitutional violations because the Parliament decided to terminate Đuranović’s judicial function without notifying the Constitutional Court, as mandated. They hampered sessions where the budget proposal was on the agenda, which was nevertheless passed during an extraordinary session on February 7, with opposition MPs absent due to Speaker Mandić imposing a 15-day expulsion from the plenary.

Meanwhile, the Assembly’s Administrative Committee has approved Đuranović’s request for compensation following the termination of her office.

Prime Minister and the Europe Now Movement (PES) Milojko Spajic and opposition leader of the Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) Danijel Zivkovic met on January 18 in Podgorica with the Head of the European Union Delegation to Montenegro, Johann Satler, who suggested that the Venice Commission review the decisions that led to Đuranović’s judicial function termination. However, no official inquiry has yet been made to the Venice Commission for their perspective.

In the Assembly, particularly within the Constitutional Committee, the process of selecting successors for Đuranović and Gogić’s positions is currently underway, while President Jakov Milatovic has announced a search for a successor to Šćepanović’s position.

News