Suchergebnisse

Predmet rada je pravni institut izdvojenog/odvojenog mišljenja sudije, odnosno sudija koji se ne slažu s odlukom za koju je glasala većina sudija ustavnog suda, bilo u njenoj izreci ili u dijelu izreke bilo u obrazloženju ili dijelu obrazloženja. Izdvojeno mišljenje obrađuje se s istorijskog, komparativnog i pravno-teorijskog aspekta. Ukazano je na razloge koji idu u prilog i protiv izdvojenog mišljenja, sudijsku nezavisnost i njihov uticaj na integritet suda, kao i prijedloge za poboljšavanje pravnog okvira izdvojenog mišljenja i njihov uticaj na kreiranje pravnog sistema. U praksi Ustavnog suda Crne Gore izdvojena mišljenja su dozvoljena, ali ne i njihovo objavljivanje, jer je na odluci Ustavnog suda da li će se ono objaviti u "Službenom listu Crne Gore" ili ne. Praksa Ustavnog suda pokazuje uzdržanost sudija Ustavnog suda u korišćenju mogućnosti da izdvoje mišljenje a i nedefinisanosti ovog instituta na pravi način. ; A dissenting opinion is a recipe necessary for any court to be healthy and it plays a protective role when it comes to unfair legislation. There are two types of dissenting opinions - when a judge accepts the majority's decision on merits, but disagrees with reasons it is based on, and when a judge opposes both the decision on merits and the reasoning. A dissenting opinion emerged in the common law states, as well as in Spain in the 15th century and in the Italian states in the 18th century, to be taken over by the states of continental (civil) law in the middle of the last century. This institute has been challenged, re-examined, abandoned and reaccepted as an integral part of decision-making throughout history. In science, a dissenting opinion is defined as the opinion of one or more judges who disagree with the decision made by the majority. As far as Europe is concerned, this institute is not envisaged in Austria, Belgium, France, Malta and Luxembourg. The institute of dissenting opinion was regulated for the first time in the 1963 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Montenegro, and then in other constitutions, as well as in the Law on the Constitutional Court of Montenegro. A dissenting opinion may be expressed on all acts prescribed by Article 149, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Montenegro, while it may not be expressed on decisions of the Constitutional Court suspending the execution of an individual act or action. A dissenting opinion has not taken root in the practice of the Constitutional Court of Montenegro, and the regulations governing the dissenting opinion are inadequate and need to be changed.