Podgorica, (MINA) – The Bill on Freedom of Religion or Belief and Legal Position of Religious Communities is in line with the legal model applicable in almost all member states of the Council of Europe, international law professor Nebojsa Vucinic has stated.
He said that it was about time for Montenegro to pass such law, adding that his commentary is conditional and interim, because the legal text is still a draft and still needs to be reviewed by the Venice Commission.
“That is more or less a legal model applied in a majority of countries, with certain specificities arising from Montenegro’s concrete historic and contemporary circumstances. If you analyze the laws of other countries, you will see a similar model,” Vucinic said.
According to him, the law arises from real historic and contemporary circumstances.
“That’s very important for the law to be functional. It remains to be seen how it is going to function, because it is only a draft,” Vucinic said.
According to him, in order for a law to function well, substantive sources of law need to be in line with legal form.
Vucinic explained that substantive sources of law refer to social circumstances and social interests, both historic and contemporary.
“In that context, the law adequately mirrors those historic social circumstances which refer to freedom of religion and the position of the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, as well as contemporary circumstances, i.e. a completely new national and legal political reality, meaning the formation of an independent state,” the professor argues.
He added that the European Court of Human Rights always takes into account a historic and contemporary context when delivering a judgment in each individual case.
Vucinic believes that the current bill reflects that context relatively well.
“I agree with those commentators who argue that the old law is obsolete, dating back to the era of socialism and that it is unsustainable.”
He noted that the central issue of the bill is Article 62.
According to Vucinic, it is a legitimate right of a country to regulate the question of acquiring property, which is a matter of a margin of assessment and countries enjoy wide discretionary powers to regulate those issues.
He added that, in accordance with Article 1 Paragraph 2 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention of Human Rights, a country clearly enjoys a wide margin of assessment when adopting laws that regulate the use of property in accordance with public interest.
“It remains to be seen what the Venice Commission’s opinion will be and how the debate in the Parliament will look like. This is still an early stage in passing the law,” Vucinic concluded. Longer version of article is available on a link MINA ENGLISH SERVIS
