Vol.8, No 1, 2010 pp. 79-92
UDC 342.565.2 (497.11)
AN APPEAL TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT AND A CONSTITUTIONAL APPEAL
Jelena Vučković
Faculty of Law, University of Kragujevac, Serbia
E-mail: jvuckovic@jura.kg.ac.rs
The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia (2006) and the Constitutional Court Act (2007) envisage vast competences of the Constitutional Court. The competence which proves to be a rather interesting matter of current debate refers to lodging special appeals with this Court. The Constitution has envisaged that these special appeals may be filed in several cases, in two of which the Court has explicitly precluded the right to file a constitutional appeal. This yields a conclusion that an appeal to the Constitutional Court and the constitutional appeal are two different legal remedies which consequently imply different competences of the Constitutional Court.
A constitutional appeal may be lodged against individual legal acts or actions of state bodies of authority or organizations vested with delegated public authorities whose legal acts or actions either violate or deny the human or minority rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution. A constitutional appeal may be lodged only if the appellant has exhausted all other legal remedies envisaged by the law or if a legal remedy has not been prescribed (Article 170 of the Constitution). On the other hand, an appeal to the Constitutional Court may be lodged directly on the grounds of constitutional provisions only for the purpose of protecting specific rights, such as: the rights of judges, public prosecutors and deputy public prosecutors concerning the termination of their public offices; the rights of the members of parliament concerning the confirmation of their terms of office, and the right to the province autonomy and local self-government.
In spite of the apparent differences between these two legal remedies, the legal practice has recently encountered a problem regarding the application of these two types of appeal. The problem is related to a recent case on the termination of offices of judges, pubic prosecutors and deputy public prosecutors. In a large number of cases, the appellants concurrently lodged both legal remedies seeking adequate constitutional protection. The Constitutional Court was of the opinion that the unappointed judges and prosecutors are entitled to file an appeal with the Constitutional Court; thus, the Constitutional Court implicitly resolved the dilemma that was present in the general public on whether it was the issue of the judges' removal from office or a general judicial appointment.
Apart from the inexact general terminology, the Constitution contains quite an imprecise definition on the legal nature of an appeal to the Constitutional Court. Considering the fact that an appeal to the Constitutional Court may be filed against individual legal acts and actions in different procedural circumstances, this may lead to a (wrong) conclusion that these appeals are different modalities of the constitutional appeal.
Key words:
A constitutional appeal, an appeal to the Constitutional Court
ŽALBA USTAVNOM SUDU I USTAVNA ŽALBA
Ustav Republike Srbije (2006) i Zakon o ustavnom sudu (2007) predviđaju široku nadležnost Ustavnog suda. Posebno je interesantna, i pokazala se prilično aktuelna, nadležnost Ustavnog suda koja se odnosi na podnošenje posebnih žalbi ovom sudu. Ustav je ove žalbe predvideo u nekoliko slučajeva pri čemu je u dva slučaja upotrebe ove žalbe, izričito isključio pravo na podnošenje ustavne žalbe. Iz toga se može zaključiti da se radi o dva različita pravna sredstva odnosno o različitoj nadležnosti Ustavnog suda. Dok se ustavna žalba izjavljuje protiv pojedinačnih akata i radnji državnih organa ili organizacija kojima su poverena javna ovlašćenja, a kojima se povređuju ili uskraćuju ljudska i manjinska prava i slobode zajemčena Ustavom, ako su iscrpljena ili nisu predviđena druga pravna sredstva (član 170. Ustava), žalba Ustavnom sudu izjavljuje se neposredno na osnovu ustavnih ovlašćenja, i to za zaštitu tačno određenih prava, kao što su: prava sudija, javnih tužilaca i zamenika javnih tužilaca u vezi sa prestankom njihove funkcije, prava narodnih poslanika u vezi sa potvrđivanjem mandata i pravo na pokrajinsku autonomiju i lokalnu samoupravu. Iako je na prvi pogled razlika između ova dva pravna leka sasvim jasna, u praksi se javio problem vezano za upotrebu žalbe ustavnom sudu i ustavne žalbe, povodom slučaja prestanka funkcije sudija, javnih tužilaca i zamenika javnih tužilaca. U velikom broju slučajeva podnošena su oba pravna leka istovremeno u cilju pružanja adektvatne ustavne zaštite. Ustavni sud je stao na stanovište da neizabrane sudije i tužioci imaju pravo na žalbu Ustavnom sudu, čime je implicitno razrešio dilemu koja je postojala u javnosti, da li se radi o razrešenju ili opštem izboru.
Smatramo da pored terminoloških nepreciznosti Ustav neprecizno definiše pravnu prirodu žalbe ustavnom sudu jer se u svim slučajevima žalba ustavnom sudu izjavljuje protiv pojedinačnih akata i radnji, pa se bi se moglo zaključiti da je reč o različitim modalitetima ustavne žalbe.
Ključne reči:
ustavna žalba, žalba ustavnom sudu.
