Please note: The page below represents the archived content relating to the previous Government of Montenegro. Some of the information might be inaccurate or outdated.
Archive

Statement by Representative Valentina Pavličić on decision of ECHR to dismiss request for suspension of Law on Freedom of Religion

Published on: Feb 3, 2020 10:00 PM Author: PR Service
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg informed the Office of Representative of Montenegro before ECHR on 31 January 2020 that it had decided to dismiss the request for a suspension of the Law on Freedom of Religion, finding that there was no evidence that the plaintiffs were under imminent threat of serious and irreparable harm, Montenegro's representative before the European Court of Human Rights Valentina Pavličić said today.

"On 31 January 2020, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg informed the Office of the Representative that, deciding upon a request by the Belgrade-based Radić Law Office seeking a suspension of the Law on Freedom of Religion, it decided to dismiss the request for an interim measures because it failed to meet the criteria set out in the Rules of the Court, that is, it failed to prove that as a party they were under imminent threat of serious and irreparable harm," the Representative said.

She stated that the Office of the Representative of Montenegro was informed by the European Court on 29 January that the Law Office requested the issuance of the aforementioned interim measures pending the decision of the Constitutional Court of Montenegro on the submitted initiative for reviewing the constitutionality and legality of the Law, submitted to the Constitutional Court by that same office, either pending the conclusion of a basic agreement between the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Government of Montenegro, or until deciding on a petition that office would eventually file if the Constitutional Court of Montenegro renders a decision declaring the Law constitutional.

"The European Court requested further information from them as party and informed us that it had reached a decision rejecting, i.e. dismissing such a proposal. I have to say that, pursuant to the Rules of the Court, Article 39 has been explained exactly what the issuance of a particular interim measures means and when such interim measures may be issued. This is only applicable where the parties make it probable that there will be unforeseeable consequences or irreparable harm to them as party. Given the Court's statement on this basis, I expected such decision of the European Court," she explained.

The Representative also commented on Radić's assessment of a 2012 European Court decision on a petition filed by the Eparchy of Budimlja and Nikšić seeking restitution of church property, alleging a violation of several convention rights, including a violation of the right to a fair trial and right to property, as well as violation of right to non-discrimination and ineffective legal remedy.

"They complained about several allegedly violated rights. The European Court has made a clear decision declaring such a petition inadmissible without recognising the violation of the right to property of this diocese, since it was neither the holder of this right at the time it approached the European Court nor when it addressed the national institutions of Montenegro, nor did it have a legitimate expectation that it could have a certain right to property. That decision is completely clear and I see no reason to interpret it any differently," she stated.

The Representative emphasised the subsidiary character of the European Convention, which means that before addressing the European Court, all parties must first seek their rights before national state authorities.

“In this sense, everything that this law prescribes must first be resolved before the state authorities of Montenegro. Only after that, if one of the parties is dissatisfied with the resolution of a particular legal issue, can it go to the European Court," the Representative concluded.

Office of the Representative of Montenegro before ECHR


Is this page useful?