Serbia's opposition: Constitutional Court is 'nothing but SNS local branch'

N1

Serbia's Constitutional Court said on Monday its decision to reject the request for a review of the constitutionality of the introduction of the state of emergency introduced in the country on March 15 was based on the Constitution, N1 reported.

In its response to the explanation of the ruling, Janko Veselinovic, a member of the opposition Alliance for Serbia (SzS) told reporters outside the Constitutional Court that the institution „is nothing else but a local branch of (the ruling Serbian Progressive Party) SNS.“

N1

 The initiative was submitted on April 29, after an earlier unsuccessful attempt, when the door to the Court was closed.

„We have received this morning a shameful document in which no one from those who submitted the initiative, who are mentioned as ‘some.’ That means the ruling is a selective and political decision,“ he added.

The Court published its ruling two days after its session, following criticism from legal experts and the opposition which focused, among other things, on the fact that the decision did not mention who requested the review.

„I have the impression that (the first, two days ago) the Court’s statement doesn’t merit its role, in fact, the first word that comes to my mind is shameless, because it says that all initiatives have been rejected without naming those who have submitted the request and how many initiatives there have been,“ Vesna Rakic Vodinelic, a law professor, has told N1.

Other experts also criticised the Court for the same reason and for not publishing the ruling immediately.

When it did on Monday, it said that the COVID-19 disease could be considered as „a public danger which jeopardises the survival of the state and people,“ and that „it cannot be concluded that the constitutional condition for the state of emergency was not met.“

It added that while deciding on the state of emergency, other things should be taken into account like the situation and capacity of the health care system, population’s health culture, mentality, national age structure and others factors.

The Court justified the introduction of the state of emergency instead of an emergency situation by saying that „the prevailing stand in the constitutional practice is that it’s difficult, if not impossible, to make a clear distinction between the two.“

„The Constitutional Court’s opinion is that the legal capacity in an emergency situation doesn’t guarantee the efficiency of the state and services.“

The deviations of human rights and freedoms are common during a state of emergency. They do not prove the violation of the division of power itself, or that the control mechanisms of the rule of law are not functioning, according to the Constitutional Court statement.  

The state of emergency was declared without the Parliament session and by co-signatures by President Aleksandar Vucic, Prime Minister Ana Brnabic and Parliament Speaker Maja Gojkovic.

The Parliament met on April 29, a month and a half after the declaration of the state of emergency and verified it and all the measures that followed.