ZAGREB, 16 May 2022 - Constitutional Court Chief Justice Miroslav Šeparović said on Monday that the court's decision on the Bridge party's referendum initiative related to COVID crisis management was not the defeat of that court, and called on everyone advocating the rule of law to respect court decisions.

"This is by no means the Constitutional Court's defeat but it is in line with what the Constitution envisages and that is for the Constitutional Court to decide if a referendum question is in line with the Constitution. I call on everyone who advocates the rule of law to respect the court's decisions. Referendum initiatives are legitimate and for signatures to be collected but the Constitution says that the Constitutional Court decides on constitutionality," underscored Šeparović.

Šeparović said that it was only the Bridge that was trying to exert pressure through the media on this judicial institution and neither the ruling parties nor the opposition tried to pressurize the court. The court president underscored that pressure can never bring any results.

"The court delivered its ruling within the prescribed deadline of 30 days," he added, in reference to the Bridge's accusations that the court failed to hand down the rulings within the timeframes.

"The stories about politicking are old and always come to the fore when someone is not satisfied with a court decision," he added.

Šeparović explained that the Bridge party did not tell citizens exactly what would happen if the referendum managed to amend the Constitution the way the party had requested.

"They probably went toward legitimate political objectives, but they went about it in the wrong way." 

"They claimed that if the Constitution were to be amended the way they wanted then the parliament would have to decide by a two-third majority but they also kept the word that it 'could.' As such, nothing would have changed with the proposed constitutional amendment which in itself is not contrary to the Constitution but is contrary to the rule of law because you cannot tell citizens to go to a referendum and amend the Constitution, but there is no point to do so because the Sabor will not have to decide by a two-thirds majority," said Šeparović.

Šeparović did not wish to speculate why the Bridge launched the referendum initiative and whether they had sought advice in that regard. "They probably had legitimate political objectives but went about it the wrong way," he said.

Šeparović on plans for new law on abortion

Asked whether the right to abortion should be in the Constitution, Šeparović said that the Constitutional Court never gives its opinion in advance or whether something be inscribed in the law or the Constitution as that is a matter for the law-making authorities.

"The Constitution Court assessed that the existing law (on the termination of pregnancy) is in line with the Constitution. As such, there is no legal ban on pregnancy termination and there is no referendum on that issue. Whether the creator of the Constitution wishes to change something is a matter for the legislature and the Constitutional Court will not enter into that. We have said that a new law needs to be adopted, for preventative education to be regulated and for pregnancy termination to be an exception. The Sabor has not respected that and that isn't just undermining the Constitutional Court's authority but also infringe the rule of law," said Šeparović.

"I expect the government to make a recommendation and for the Sabor to adopt a new law on pregnancy termination."

He added that he still expects the Sabor to adopt a new law as ordered by the Constitutional Court and claimed that that was sending a bad message to citizens.

''If the Sabor does not respect the court's decisions how can we expect citizens to. The Constitutional Court does not have the means to make the Sabor adopt a new law. The strongest weapon the court has is to abolish the existing law and determine a deadline when that law would no longer be in effect. In this case, we did not establish that the law was unconstitutional but we did order the Sabor to replace the outdated law which had several problems and for it to be amended and a new law to be passed," said he.

For more, check out our politics section.

ZAGREB, 11 Oct 2021 - The Constitutional Court on Monday re-elected its president Miroslav Šeparović for another four-year term in office, the court said in a press release.

Šeparović has been at the helm of the court since 2016. His new term expires on 12 October 2025.

The president of the Constitutional Court is elected at a closed session by secret ballot, and seven out of 13 votes are necessary for the Court's head to be chosen. Šeparović has been head of the Constitutional Court since 2016. He was first elected in June 2016, and in October 2017 he was re-elected for a term of four years.

Šeparović told Hina today that the aim of his new term "is to boost the efficiency of the Constitutional Court" and improve the court's ratings.

Šeparović, born in the town of Blato on the island of Korčula on 18 July 1958, graduated from the Law School of the University of Zagreb in 1981. In 2013 he earned a doctoral degree.

He was the justice minister from 1995 to 1998 and performed some other high-level public duties.

For more on politics, CLICK HERE.

ZAGREB, 23 March, 2021 - The Constitutional Court on Tuesday concluded that the Croatian President can select a nominee for the Supreme Court Chief Justice only from those applicants who sent their applications for that post after the State Judicial Council (DSV) publicly advertised the position. 

After receiving requests to test the constitutionality of the provision regulating the selection procedure under which the DSV advertises the position for the Supreme Court President, the Constitutional Court, which considered this issue, said that the provision concerned does not restrict the head of state's constitutional powers whereby he/she can nominate the candidate for the said post while it is the parliament that appoints the Supreme Court head.

The Constitutional Court says that the head of state is authorised to nominate one of the applicants who have sent their applications following the DSV's public advertisement.

The latest conclusion of the Constitutional Court was adopted with nine votes in favour and four votes against it. These four judges have announced their dissenting opinions, while four of the nine judges who voted for this conclusion have also announced the publication of their supporting opinions.

The Constitutional Court has received a few requests to review the constitutionality of the Courts Act which stipulates the procedure for the appointment of the Supreme Court President.

The issue has grabbed limelight since President Zoran Milanović decided not to select any of the three applicants who sent their applications after the State Judicial Council advertised the position.

After the expiry of the public call, Milanović proposed law professor Zlata Đurđević, insisting that the law regulating the procedure is not in line with the Constitution.

In the meantime, lawyers Sandra Marković and Jadranka Sloković have sent a request to the Constitutional Court to test the constitutionality of the said legislation, after a request for the review of its constitutionality was also forwarded by filmmaker Dario Juričan, who ran in the presidential election in 2019.

Constitutional Court president Miroslav Šeparović told Hina on Friday that the court would decide on Tuesday whether the latest request would be put on its agenda as a separate item or whether it would be discussed together with Juričan's proposal.

Milanović insists that it is his constitutional right to nominate the person he chooses. The decision of the parliament speaker not to add Milanović's motion to the parliament's agenda concerning professor Đurđević, who was not among the three applicants, prompted President Milanović to criticise the legislature for defending the status quo and "untouchable" top officials in the judiciary.

Last Friday, the parliament confirmed the opinion of the Committee on the Constitution that no mistake was made by Speaker Gordan Jandroković when he asked President Milanović to supplement his motion on the nomination of the Supreme Court president.

For more about politics in Croatia, follow TCN's dedicated page.