Neustavnost Briselskog sporazuma
Non Constitutionality of the Brussels Treaty

Summary/Abstract: The author considers 3 preliminary questions first. Each of the questions depends on and links to the answer given to the previous question: 1. Is the Brussels Agreement a legal or political act? 2. If the Brussels Agreement is a legal act, is it a general act that can be subjected to judicial control of it’s constitutionality? 3. If it is a general legal act, is it an international Agreement as well? In author’s opinion, the Brussels Agreement is a legal act. Furthermore, it is a general legal act that can be subjected to judicial review of it’s constitutionality. Therefore the Constitutional Court of Serbia, if it were to uphold the provisions of clause 1, paragraph 1 of article 167 of the Constitution of Republic of Serbia, has to be competent for review of the constitutionality of Brussels Agreement. Bearing that in mind, one has to deduce that question whether the Brussels Agreement is an international agreement or not, becomes superfluous from the perspective of competence of the Constitutional Court, since it’s competence can be asserted as soon as it had been determined that Brussels Agreement is a general legal act. The author stresses the fact that non- constitutionality of the Brussels Treaty created dramatic, even fatal consequences for Republic of Serbia and its’ citizens in Kosovo and Metohija. Government of Serbia, by signing the Agreement, agreed to erradication of last institutions of Republic of Serbia in Kosovo and Metohija and forced our co-patriots to become citizens of a hostile state. It furthermore violated territorial integrity of Serbia in the long run, by reducing Serbia to rest of it’s territory outside former Autonomous province of Kosovo and Metohija, even though Kosovo and Metohija represents roots of Serbia’s statehood and spirituality, both in the territorial, and cultural and historic sense.

• Details
• Contents