The Constitutional Court rejected the proposal, submitted by Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS), for the evaluation of the constitutionality and legality of the Brussels Agreement. In such a way the Court declared itself incompetent for this issue.

“The decision of the Court that the Brussels Agreement, by its nature, is not an international agreement (general legal act), but a political act, is the result of a comprehensive analysis of certain elements of the agreement, which the Court conducted by examining different arguments of the experts of international public and constitutional law, expressed within the public debate,” was stated from the Constitutional Court.

Constitutional law professor, Ratko Marković, explains: “The Court has obviously considered the Brussels Agreement as an individual political act, which is not subject of review of constitutionality. However, according to my oppinion, the Court had to look beyond the topic and to bear in mind that although the policy-making is within the jurisdiction of the Government, it must be within the valid Constitution. The decision was, however, anticipated, because otherwise the whole policy of the Government would be refuted.

DSS leader, Sanda Raskovic Ivic, said that the decision was made under the pressure from the government: “Requirements of President Nikolic that the Constitutional Court "discontinue the assessment of the constitutionality", pressures of Minister Selaković and executive powers to declare the Court “incompetent” resulted in this capitulation of the court and the victory of politics over the law. Brussels Agreement is a legal document, not only a political agreement, by which the Government abolished the institutions of the state of Serbia in Kosovo and Metohija and violated the territorial integrity of the country.

For the President of the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Aleksandar Martinovic, the decision of the court is legal, not a political one: “As a representative of Parliament, at the hearing before the Constitutional Court, I represented the view that this institution is not responsible for the debate on the constitutionality of the Brussels Agreement, because the Agreement does not have the characteristics of ratified international treaty.

According to unofficial information four judges of the Constitutional Court had dissenting opinions. Professor Markovic said that dissenting opinions are a common practice, but in the most cases one or maximum two judges have such opinion: “The opinion can be dissenting when the judge does not agree with the decision, or when judge support the decision, but not the explanation that goes with it.