Podgorica, (MINA-BUSINESS) – The Constitutional Court has failed to reach a majority for the proposal of the reporting judge to initiate proceedings to assess the constitutionality of the Law ratifying the Agreement on Cooperation in Tourism and Real Estate Development between the Governments of Montenegro and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

“Two female judges and one male judge voted in favour of initiating constitutional review proceedings regarding the Law ratifying the Agreement with the Emirates, while two male judges and one female judge voted against initiating the proceedings,” the court said in a press release.

The judges who supported launching the procedure argued that the law ratifying the agreement should have been adopted by a two-thirds majority, as it regulates the property rights of foreigners. Otherwise, they said, the parliament could adopt other international treaties by a simple majority even if they regulate matters that require a qualified majority, such as electoral rights, which may include issues related to dual citizenship.

“The judges noted that an international treaty has primacy over domestic laws and must therefore be assessed from the perspective of the constitutional principles of the rule of law, the unity of the legal order and legal certainty, especially considering that the Agreement has not yet entered into legal force and cannot yet produce consequences for Montenegro under international law,” the press release reads.

Regarding the law ratifying the NATO agreement, the judges said it was not the same constitutional and legal situation, as it concerned a multilateral treaty that does not raise questions about the fundamental constitutional principles nor create an obligation to adopt separate laws or undertake specific activities for its implementation, and therefore does not raise issues of legal certainty.

Judges who voted against initiating the proceedings argued that the Constitutional Court is not competent to assess the substantive content of a law ratifying an international agreement, that the law does not call into question the parliamentary majority that approved the agreement, and that the agreement does not affect the property rights of foreigners in a way that would require two-thirds support.

They also stated that Montenegro’s Constitution does not provide for prior constitutional review, but only subsequent review of the formal constitutionality of laws.

Additionally, they argued that opening such proceedings could reopen the issue of the constitutionality of the law ratifying the NATO agreement, which was adopted with the votes of 46 MPs, although the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the first round for the deployment of the Montenegrin army in international forces.