The Constitutional Court guarantees objectivity and neutrality / day
The Constitutional Court, as an independent judicial authority, is competing in its competence by judging the court. Its judgments and interpretation of legal norms are mandatory for all state and municipal institutions, courts and officials, as well as individuals. The task of the Constitutional Court is to clarify the judgments that were made at a press conference in that case, including the participation of the author of the opinion as the representative of the parties. However, the involvement of the court in a public discussion with the persons involved in cases on the merits of the court would not be allowed. At the same time, in view of the publicly expressed view of the sworn lawyer on the composition of the court, it is important to explain how the Constitutional Court guarantees the adoption of a fair ruling in its work, ensuring the objectivity and neutrality of the court in every case.
Pursuant to Article 25 of the Constitutional Court Law, cases regarding the compliance of the laws with the Constitution shall be heard by the Court in full composition of seven judges. If the Constitutional Court is in full composition, it contains all judges whose health or other objective circumstances do not hesitate to attend the hearing. On the other hand, Article 14 of the Law on Judicial Power It follows that the judge must be referred to himself from the case if he is personally or indirectly interested in the outcome of the case or other circumstances that are in doubt about his impartiality, as well as in the cases provided for in the law « On Prevention of Conflict of Interest in the Activities of Public Officials ».
The aim of the referee’s resignation institute is to ensure the objectivity and neutrality of the court, which is the right to guarantee a fair court. Every judge before initiating the case assesses whether there are no circumstances that could affect his objectivity and neutrality. The judge should carefully consider and make the decision on resolving or participating in the case, following the highest professional and ethical standards.
Although the law does not directly provide for the possibility of filing a rejection of the Constitutional Court judge, there have been a number of cases where such requests have been received and responded to the substance. The Constitutional Court has acknowledged that if there is doubt about the impartiality of the judge, the court must assess such considerations on the merits. The basis for the referee’s obligation to leave the case may be circumstances that raise reasonable doubts about his objectivity, if: 1) the judge has previously participated in the underlying dispute or resolution of the proceedings; 2) The judge is personally interested in the outcome of the proceedings (Judgment of the Constitutional Court of July 16, 2020 in case no. 2019-23-01 Point 9). At the same time, from internationally recognized principles of judges, it can be concluded that the resembling of a judge from the case is always extraordinary, not a typical situation. The reasons for such an emergency situation, even from the point of view of an independent observer, must be justified. The Constitutional Court shall evaluate the essence of every request in the request if they have doubts about the impartiality and neutrality of the judge.
The Constitutional Court did not make known doubts in the published views of the sworn attorney regarding the impartiality and neutrality of the court or a separate judge – they were not expressed before the case with a particular case. Also, the judges in the court did not find the circumstances that could affect their objectivity and neutrality. On the other hand, in another case, which was also related to the regulation of the proceedings of the proceedings, the author made his doubts to the court by submitting a corresponding procedural request. The Court assessed this in substance and made a decision without detecting circumstances indicating the bias of a Judge of the Constitutional Court (the decision of the Constitutional Court of 28 January 28, 2025 in case No. 2023-40-01. Here!
It is important to emphasize that the constitutional court judge’s view of the legal framework in itself cannot be the reason for the judge to leave the case. The basis of a constitutional court judge’s obligation to leave the case could be circumstances indicating a possible personal interest in the judge to achieve a particular outcome of the case (Judgment of the Constitutional Court of July 16, 2020 in case no. 2019-23-01 Point 9). No such circumstances were found in cases of crime.
The adoption of the decisions of the Constitutional Court is characterized by the principle of collegiality – one of the principles of the objectivity and neutrality of the court. This means that all seven judges have the same right to decide on issues related to the case and to adopt any decision with the majority of judges in the composition of the court. This excludes a disproportionate impact of one view on the decision of the entire composition of the court.
Sworn lawyers are persons belonging to the judiciary, who also act in the Constitutional Court, both as representatives of the parties and the invited persons. Constructive criticism of the conclusions contained in the court rulings is desirable as it contributes to the development of legal thought and the diversity of opinions. At the same time, the legal thought process is based on respect as the Constitution -based value, both against each other and in their relations with colleagues of the judiciary. It promotes effective and constructive cooperation in providing the rule of law, as well as strengthens confidence and mutual understanding, which is indispensable in professional quality.
