Constitutional Court rejected the proposal of the Office for Kosovo and Metohija to assess the constitutionality of a range of acts brought on the territory of Kosovo and Metohija, which refer to managing of a property to which Serbia is entitled to, and informed the public about it only few days ago by publishing its decision in the Official Gazette.
It is about 11 regulations and administrative instructions: on Kosovo Trust Agency, Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, on amendment of the right on use of immovable socially owned property, on allocation of land managed by the Kosovo Trust Agency in municipalities…Acts were brought by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo in the period 2002-2008, which led to illegal privatizations, according to the opinion of the Office for Kosovo. The Office stated that disputed acts are ‘in violation with the article 76 of the Constitution of Serbia which stipulates that the state is entitled to manage and ensure the legal status of economic subjects, ownership and obligatory relations and protection of all forms of ownership, and that Constitutional Court is entitled to assess constitutionality of UNMIK’s general acts’.
In the rationale provided in 18 pages, the Constitutional Court of Serbia, composed by the panel of 12 judges, with a dissenting opinion of one judge, ruled that ‘disputed acts were not brought on the basis of the Constitution, instead they are brought in line with the mandate entrusted to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General by the UN Security Council resolution 1244 (1999).
‘Disputed acts, considering subjects matter which they refer to and subjects which brought them, don’t even represent international contracts which are part of the legal order of the Republic of Serbia’, concluded the Constitutional Court.
In her dissenting opinion judge Dr. Olviera Vučić, who voted against such decision of the Constitutional Court, said that Office for Kosovo and Metohija ‘agreed to halt the assessment of the constitutionality of the general acts on privatization’, brought on the territory of Kosovo.
Serbia’s parliament Committee for Constitutional Matters and Legislation on 14 December 2012 informed the Constitutional Court that ‘a draft law is being developed which will regulate essential autonomy of the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija’. The Committee proposed ‘that all proceedings at the Constitutional Court should halt, along with the ones that refer to constitutionality and legality of legal acts which are addressing matters which will be arranged by the mentioned law’.
In the end Committee voiced its assurance that ‘Constitutional Court is aware of the importance of adequate arranging of the subject matter, and that it will be cooperative toward relevant state bodies’. Constitutional Court had forwarded the Committee’s note to Serbia’s government on 18 January last year, and received the note from the Office for Kosovo and Metohija on 22 February where it proposes that Constitutional Court ‘halts procedure on the assessment of the constitutionality of general acts on privatization’.
Office for Kosovo and Metohiaj at least got the reply on their request. Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) on September 2012 filed the request with the Constitutional court on the assessment of the legality of regulations brought on the basis of agreements reached between Belgrade and Pristina in Brussels. Even First Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vučić said that he will accept any decision of the Constitutional Court. However, Constitutional Court still didn’t bring decision with regards to that request.
