Izdvojeno mišljenje na odluku Ustavnog suda IUo-247/2013
Separate Opinion to the Constitutional Court’s Decision IUo-247/2013

Summary/Abstract: In this text author puts forth his opinion that Decision of the Constitutional Court in this case is based on problematic legal point of view taken in the attempt to determine the real nature of „The first agreement“ in order to consider the admissibility of initiative to review act’s constitutionality. Majority view, without any legal basis, was to deny that Brussels Agreement has characteristics of a normative, general act that could be subject to material review of constitutionality and legality. Author maintains that this is only one of three possible understandings of character of this treaty- it’s the view that denies characteristics of similated international treaty, as initially seen by those initiating the review. Majority of judges furthermore denied that Treaty has qualities of general normative act- a view put forth by all constitutionalists during the public debate. The above- mentioned majority view, based on faulty premises, only seemingly logically lead to the dismisal of the initiative, due to alleged lack of procedural pre- conditions for decision by the Constitutional Court. One however can make principled objections to the above- mentioned views, fully disqualifying them, and thus leading to the full dismissal of Constitutional Court’s decision as a logical consequence of such line of reasoning. Applying a view from the strict perspective of constitutional law, one. cannot accept such an interpretation of the legal nature of the act under the review that lead to procedural decision of the Constitutional Court. One can demonstrate that Brussels Agreement has been legally implemented through adoption of both general and particular legal acts. It has produced and continues to produce direct legal consequences.. Bearing those facts in mind, one can view the majority view of judges of Constitutional Court as wrong, almost arbitrary, in acceptable manner of solving a case of constitutional dispute.

• Details
• Contents