>?3klemd:mkl::kj;b3?m ihklmidmih … › files › master-radovi › pesic-danilo.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Ј ИЈ
Ј И
( а а )
: :
.
: 022/14 –
, 2016.
..................................................................................................................................... 1
I : ............................................................................ 4
II : ....... 7
2.1 ........................................................... 7
2.2
..................................................................................... 9
2.3
( ) ............................... 13
2.4 ..................................................... 14
2.5 .................................................... 15
III : .............................. 17
3.1 ................................................................. 17
3.2 ..................... 19
3.3 ................................................... 21
3.4 ............................................................. 23
IV : ................................................................... 24
V : ............................................................................ 42
........................................................................... 46
Ђ ................................................................. 48
.......................................................................................... 49
.............................................................................................. 52
1
ђ
,
.
,
,
.
, , ,
.
. , ,
,
.
2006. ,
(1990), .
170. ,
,
ђ ,
ђ .
, ,
,
.
ђ ,
,
.
ђ , ,
, ,
.
,
,
2
,
,
,
( )
.
, ђ
,
,
ђ
. ,
,
.
-
,
.
2015. ,
01.01.2015. 31.12.2015. .
,
ђ
ђ ,
.
- . ,
, ,
, ђ
.
.
3
,
. ђ
, ,
,
,
, ,
.
01.01.2015. 31.12.2015. ,
, , 2014. ,
, , .
- , ђ
, - ђ
,
.
4
I
. ,
ђ ,
.
,
ђ , . ђ
.
.1
,
. , ,
ђ , , ,
.
.2 ђ ,
.
,
. ,
,
ђ
.
, ,
ђ .
, ,
, .
,
, , 1 . , : - , II , ,
ђ , , , 2012, . 16 2 . , ђ ђ , ,
, 57/2011, . 186
5
, ђ . ђ
,
1950. , ђ
ђ
. ђ
,
1950. ,
1948. , ђ ђ
ђ , , 1966.
.
ђ
.
. ђ
,
.3
4.
,
,
. ђ
, (
) . ђ
, ђ
,
.5
, ,
, ђ , ,
. 3 . , У , 3 , , 2014, . 95
4 . , –
, , . 56, 2010, . 154 5 . , –
, , , 1989, . 97 - 98
6
ђ .6
,
.
:
.
.
,
.
. ,
,
,
„ “.7 ,
, , ђ
,
, .
6 . , , , . 23, 1983, . 323
7 : . ,
ђ , , , 2010, . 140
7
II :
2.1.
, „amparo“, ђ
. 1931. 8.
- , „ mparo“ ,
. ,
„ mparo“ .
ђ
ђ .
,
.
, ,
1848. ,
1874. 1893. , ,
„ “ 1867. ,
, 1920. 1945. .
, ђ ,
1951.
1969. 9.
,
, . ,
( , , , , ,
ђ , , , , , , ).
,
,
8 . Ђ , У , , 2000, . 32-35
9 . , ђ
, ђ – (З ), , , 2009, . 104
8
, ђ
.10
,
„amparo“ , ,
( . ), ( . ).
,
,
1963. 11,
„ “. , 229. . 2.,
„
ђ
ђ -
, ђ
“.12 1963. 13,
„
“,
.14
1974. 15,
ђ ,
1990. 16, ђ
. 1992. 17
„ “.
2003. 18 ђ
. ,
10
G. Dannemman, „Constitutional Complaints: The European Perspective“, International and comparative Law
Quarterly, Vol. 43, 1994, pp. 142 11
( , 14/63 ) 12
229. .2. ( , 14/63 ) 13
( , 54/63 ) 14
: . , „ ђ ?“,
, . 2/2007 , . 71-72 15
( , 8/74 ) 16
( , 1/90 ) 17
( , 1/92 ) 18
( , 1/03 )
9
ђ 19,
.20
2006. 21, , ђ
. , 170.
ђ „
,
ђ
, ђ
“. , ,
, ђ .22
2.2
. .
„
“, . „
ђ “23. .
„ “24. .
„
“.25 .
„
,
19
ђ ( , 26/03 )
20 . , op.cit., . 73
21 ( , 98/06 )
22 . , У – II, , 2013, . 481
23 . , У , , 1960, .68-72, . , У – II, ,
2014, . 482 24
. , : , ђ ( ), , 2008, . 266
25 . , У , , 2011, 87
10
“.26 .
„
“27. .
.28
,
1920.
, .29
.
,
, ђ
.
,
.
,
ђ ,
ђ
. :
,
( , )
;
26
. , „ ђ ?“, , . 2/2007 , . 71
27 . , У , , .
4/2007, . 202 28
. , У – , , . 1/2012, . 222
29 T. Karakamisheva-Jovanovska, PapОr „Constitutional Complaint-Procedural and Legal Instrument for
Development of the Constitutional Justice (Case study-Federal Republic of Germany, Republic of Croatia,
RОpublic oП SlovОnia and RОpublic oП MacОdonia)“, World Conference on Constitutional Justice on theme:
“IЧПХuОЧtТКХ CШЧstТtutТШЧКХ JustТce: its influence on Society and on developing a global human rights
УurТspruНОЧМО”, ШrРКЧТгОН Лв tСО CШЧstТtutТШЧКХ CШurt ШП ЋШutС AПrТМК КЧН tСО VОЧТМО CШЦЦТssТШЧ, CКpО TШаЧ, 23-24 January 2009, pp. 3 , http://www.venice.coe.int/WCCJ/WCCJ_papers_E.asp
11
, ,
( , ђ
„ “,
)
,
( ) ђ .
( )
, ,
( ) , .
.30
ђ , ( ,
, ђ )
( , , , .).
( ), ( ),
.
.
,
,
ђ ?
, 170.
ђ , .
, , ,
,
30
e : . , . , ђ , , , 2010, . 106
12
ђ ,
, ,
.31
ђ ,
ђ ђ ,
ђ ђ .
16. 194. , ђ ђ
ђ
ђ ђ
, ,
ђ
ђ ђ ,
ђ
.
,
ђ ђ ђ
, .32
, , ,
,
ђ .
, ,
.
,
.
ђ ,
.33
31
. , ђ ђ , , , 57/2011, . 189
32 30.10.2008. 02.04.2009. ,
http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/view/163-100890/stavovi-suda 33
. , У , , , 31/1991, . 142
13
, ,
.34
2.3
( )
, ( .
) .35
( )
ђ
. ,
( )
,
, .
, ,
,
.
ђ , .
, .
,
ђ ( ). ,
,
. ( ) ђ
, .
,
,
ђ
, ђ
. ђ :
34
. , op.cit,, . 106 35
: . , У , , 14, , 2007, . 834
14
, ( ,
);
, ( ,
);
, ђ
ђ .
ђ :
,
ђ ;
, ( )
ђ
;
, ;
, ;
, ( , .).
, , „
“. . :
ђ
ђ .
2.4
36. 30
,
36
84. ( , . 109/2007, 99/2011, 18/13 – , 40/2015 103/2015 )
15
, ,
, ,
. ,
.
,
,
– . ђ , ђ
, :
ђ 15
,
, , .
,
ђ .
2.5
ђ
. , :
, ђ ,
, ;
;
;
ђ ,
;
;
,
, ;
16
,
37.
,
, .
.
ђ ,
,
.
37
85. ( , . 109/2007, 99/2011, 18/13 – , 40/2015 103/2015 )
17
III :
3.1.
: . 38
( ) , ,
ђ
.
. :
1) ;
2) ,
,
,
3) ђ ,
:
1) ;
2) ђ ;
3)
4) ђ ђ
.
,
ђ
.
38
. , У – II, , 2013, . 507
18
.39
, , ,
. .
,
(
) .
,
,
, ,
.
ђ ,
.
,
,
, .
:
ђ ,
ђ
,
;
ђ ,
, ;
;
. 39
D. Kommers: The constitutional jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of Germany, Durham, London,
1997, p. 14
19
.
,
, ,
.
,
( )
.
(
ђ ),
.
, , ђ
, „ “
.
, ,
ђ ,
ђ
ђ
ђ . ,
ђ
,
, ,
(
),
ђ ђ .
, ђ
.
3.2.
, , ђ
.
,
20
, ,
.40
,
, ,
/
41.
, .42
( ),
.
.
, ,
ђ , ђ ,
ђ .
ђ . ђ ,
,
. ,
, „ 43“.
.
.
.
, , ,
, inter partes, ђ ,
ђ 40
. , – У , , 65/2013, . 375
41 . , Љ , ђ
, , , 2012, . 90 42
. , У , , , , 2013, . 290 - 310
43 G. Harutyunyan & A.Mavcic, Constitutional Review and Its Development in theModern World: a
Comparative Constitutional Analysis, Yerevan-Ljubljana, 1999, p. 157
21
, –
,
.
, ,
.44 ,
, :
( ) ;
;
,
.45
( , . 28/2008
. 27/2008)
90
. , ђ , ,
,
,
.46
3.2
.
,
. , sui generis ,
,
,
.
44
86. .1 ( , . 109/2007, 99/2011, 18/13 – , 40/2015 103/2015 )
45 , . , У , , 2011, . 107 - 108
46 78. ( , . 103/2013 )
22
( ) ,
, ,
.
,
ђ
, . ,
,
,
, .
,
,
. ,
,
,
.
. ,
.
,
, ђ
, .
. : „
ђ
ђ
, ђ
23
“ (
– 6445/2013 21.04.2016. )
,
ђ
– . ,
,
.47
(
), ђ
.
,
. ,
ђ ,
ђ , ,
.
3.3
, .
,
, .
30
,
.
47
: L.Garlicki, ''Constituional courts versus supreme courts'', ICON, Volume 5, No.1, 2007, pp. 49
24
IV :
2015. 48. ђ , 2015.
, .
2014. 10.382 ,
2015. 9.538 9,13% . ,
9.162 , 376
( „ “).
. ,
,
, 2015. 8.810, 545 (5,83%)
2014. . (
) – 266 , 63 (19,15%)
.
2015. 79,
296 2014. .
( 7) ђ .
2015. 14.958
, 24.496
( . „ “ ).
:
94,12%
– 23.057 (14.247
8.810 );
5.88%
– 1.063 (352 711
).
669
/ / ђ ђ
( 266 48
2015. , 2015. 2014. ,
http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/view/137-101100/pregled-rada
25
403 ) 353
(79 274
).
ђ , 505 „ “ .
2015. 11.516 . ђ
10.501 (
„ “), 621 / /
ђ ђ
( - )
394 . „ “ (
„ “).
13.110 : 12.556
, 443
111 „ “ . ,
2015.
10501
I – 621
394
11516
10501
621 394
I -
ђ ђ
2015.
1. 2015.
http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/jurisprudence/35/
26
. ,
, , , ,
.
2015.
.
:
13,46%, 1.700
, 2014. . ђ ,
2014.
ђ 2.635
, 2015.
, ,
2014.
( 2014. 10.853 ,
2015. 10.501 ).
. . 2015.
1 2006. 2009. , 7 2010.
, 66 2011 , 1520 2012. , 4067
2013. , 5505 2014. 349 2015. .
2. 2015.
http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/jurisprudence/35/
1 1 7 66
1520
4067
5505
349
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2006.
од
2009.
од
2010.
од
2011.
од
2012.
од
2013.
од
2014.
од
2015.
од
2015.
27
,
2015.
3.982
01.01.2015. , 3.042
2014. .
ђ ,
, 8
44.578 .
2006.
, 31.12.2015. ,
57.141 .
2006 – 2015
2006 34 34 0
2007 325 325 0
2008 359 1567 1926 363
2009 1514 2843 4357 1225
2010 3118 5555 8673 3496
2011 5605 6929 12534 2806
2012 9346 10069 19415 7328
2013 12101 11654 23755 8013
2014 15744 9355 25099 10853
2015 14247 8810 23057 10501
57141 44580
2015.
2006 1
2009 1
2010 7
2011 66
2012 1520
2013 4067
2014 5505
2015 349
11516
28
ђ , ђ ,
,
.
2015. 5.138
, 1.348.
. 3. 2015.
http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/jurisprudence/35/
2015.
2015.
9538 11516
5138 7128
1348 1197
9538
5138
1348
11516
7128
1197
2015.
2015.
29
, ђ ,
, ,
2015. 4.723 , 4.616
, 1.003
, 2015. 964
.
. 4. /
2015.
http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/jurisprudence/35/
2015.
/ 2015.
/ 2015.
8810 10501
4723 4616
1003 964
8810
4723
1003
10501
4616
964
/ 2015.
/ 2015.
/ 2015.
30
, 2015.
23.057 , 10.501
, 12.556 2016. .
4
2010. , 61 2011. , 1.498
2012. , 3.961 2013.
, 4742 2014. 235
2015. .
5. 2015.
http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/jurisprudence/35/
2015.
2010.
4
2011.
61
2012.
1498
2013.
3961
2014.
4742
2015.
235
2015. 10501
4 61
1498
3961 4742
235
2015.
2010.
2011.
2012.
2013.
2014.
2015.
31
, 10.501 ,
1.164 (11,08%) , 467 (4,44%)
, 8.657 (82,43%) , 36
(0,34%) 177 (1,68%) .
6. 2015.
http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/jurisprudence/35/
/
1164
467
8657
36
177
10501
467 (4,44%)
1164 (11,08%)
8657 (82,43%)
36 (0,34%) 177 (1,68%)
2015.
Одлук о од ј њу у т л
Одлук о у ј њу у т л
е ење о од њу у т л
е ење о о у т по тупк
е е о д у
32
, 1296 (79,46%)
ђ , 89 (5,46%) , 244
(14,96%) 2 (0,12%) .
2015.
%
2015.
ђ 1296 79,46%
89 5,46%
244 14,96%
2 0,12%
: 1631 100%
79,46%
5,46% 0,12%
14,96%
2015.
%
ђ
http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/jurisprudence/35/
7. 2015. %
1296
89
2
244
2015.
ђ
8. 2015.
http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/jurisprudence/35/
33
,
, 1.164
(71,37%), 467 (28,63%).
,
, ,
ђ – 987 ,
– 141 ,
, – 35 , 1
.
9. 2015.
http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/jurisprudence/35/
2015.
ђ 987 309 1296
35 54 89
141 103 244
1 1 2
1164 467 1631
Г ђ ко п о
К о п о
п о п о
О т ле о л т п
987
35
141
1
309
54 103
1
2015.
ј јуће одлуке
Од ј јуће одлуке
34
:
( 21. ) – 1 ;
( 30. ) – 2 ;
( 31. ) – 2
;
ђ ( 32. ) – 544 ;
ђ
( 32. 1. ) – 543 ;
ђ ( 32. 1. ) – 11 ;
( 34. 2.
– „ “) – 1 ;
( 34. 3. ) – 2
;
( 36. 1. ) – 90
;
( 36. . 2. ) – 23
;
( 46. ) – 1
;
( 58. ) – 32 ;
( 60. 4. ) – 35
;
( 60. 4. ) – 4 ;
( 65. ) – 2 .
, 1 8.
.
35
,
.
л . т
л . т
л . т
л . т
л . т
л . т
л . т
л . т
л . т
л . т
л . т
л 59.
т
л . т
л . т
л . т
2015.
д к је - 1
у т л
т о - у т е л е
ј ње п т о - у т е л е
о п о уђење - 544
у т л
о уђење у у о оку у по тупку кој је око - 543
у т е л е о п у у о т к о
еле е т п п о уђење - у т л
у о т у к е о п у - у т л
о п етпо т ку е о т - у т е л е
о јед ку т ту п - у т л
о п о ед т о - 23
у т е л е
ло од љењ њ - у т л
о о у - у т е л е
о д - у т л
о ед п п у т ту у лу ју п е т к д о од о - у т е л е
ду о т од тељ - 2
у т е л е
10. 2015.
http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/jurisprudence/35/
36
2015.
21. 1
30.
2
31.
2
32.
ђ 544
32. 1.
ђ
543
32. 1.
ђ
11
34. 2.
( ) 1
34. 3. 2
36. 1.
90
36. 2.
23
46.
1
58. 32
60. 4.
35
60. 4.
4
65.
2
,
. ,
ђ ,
ђ , ,
.
37
ђ
ђ ,
2015. ђ (544) 2014. (
1.415). ђ
ђ ( 2015.
) ,
.
21.
2014. 2.
ђ , –
ђ , . ,
, ђ ,
, ђ ђ ,
,
. 8 , 8 8 ђ
01.01.2016. ,
ђ ( , 40/2015)
ђ ,
. ђ ,
ђ (
),
ђ
ђ .
ђ ( ,
40/2015) ђ
ђ
,
.
2016. ,
01.01.2016. ,
38
.
,
,
, ,
, ,
.
ђ , 408
,
660,217 , , 11
ђ (
), 2 ђ
. 89. 2.
, 558
, , .
2015. 8.657
,
( ).
,
,
ђ ,
,
.
. ,
2012. 10.000
, 2013. 11.200 2014. 14.200
2015. . 2.698
39
, , 2015 –
1.497
, 2.491
, 17 .
,
(
„ “), 112 .
I 7 ђ
, 5
, 7
, 91
, 1 1
.
11. I 2015.
http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/jurisprudence/35/
7 (6,25%) 5 (4,46%)
7 (6,25%)
91 (81,25%)
1 (0,89%)
1 (0,89%)
I 2015.
ђ
40
/
/
ђ 7
5
7
91
1
1
112
,
ђ ђ :
30. 36.
(„ “, 36/09) – I 479/2014
09.04.2015. , „ “, 61/2015,
, ,
;
(„ “, 121/12) –
I 156/2014 26.03.2015. , „
“, 63/2015,
, ђ .;
23. 4
(„ “, 72/11, 108/13 142/14) –
I 90/2014 15.07.2015. , „
“, 88/2015, ,
;
ђ („ “, 51/92,
53/93, 67/93, 17/99 33/99, „ “, 21/01 „
“, 29/01 101/15) – I 204/2013 09.04.2015.
, „ “, 88/2015,
41
, ;
312. 313.
(„ “, 41/09, 53/10, 101/11 32/13 –
) I 196/2013 17.12.2015. ,
„ “, 9/2016,
ђ
;
31. 7. („ “,
115/05) I 799/2012 09.04.2015. ,
„ “, 63/2015,
,
.
,
(„ “, 38/13) 02 – 3570/2013
22.04.2013. ,
.
. . , . .
, . . .
, „ ,
, ,
, „ “ ,
,
, .
,
.“ ( I 180/2013 26.03.2015. .)
42
V :
2006.
.
,
. 170. ,
, ђ
, ђ
.
,
, ђ , , ,
ђ .
–
, – .
.
, . ђ
, ( 80%
95% ) ,
ђ .
ђ
, a priori
ђ ,
ђ
.
ђ ,
,
.
43
,
ђ ,
,
,
, , .
( ) ,
, ,
. ђ
, ,
,
.
.
, ђ
, ,
, .
, –
, .
ђ
ђ ,
2015. ђ (544) 2014. (
1.415). ђ
ђ ( 2015.
) ,
.
21.
2014. 2.
ђ , –
ђ , . ,
, ђ ,
44
, ђ ђ ,
,
. 8 , 8 8 ђ
01.01.2016. ,
ђ ( , 40/2015)
ђ ,
. ђ ,
ђ (
),
ђ
ђ .
ђ ( ,
40/2015) ђ
ђ
,
.
2016. ,
01.01.2016. ,
.
,
,
, ,
, ,
.
2014. 2015. ,
. ,
2013.
,
, ђ ,
45
. 2012.
2013. 2016.
2014. 2015. .
( )
.
.
,
ђ
,
. ђ
.
ђ
.
, , ,
ђ
.
46
1. Dannemman Gerhard, „Constitutional Complaints: The European Perspective“,
International and comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 43, 1994
2. Ђ , У , , , 2000
3. , : - , II ,
, ђ ,
, , 2012
4. Garlicki Lech, ''Constituional courts versus supreme courts'', ICON, Volume 5, No.1,
2007
5. Harutyunyan Gagik & Mavcic Arne, Constitutional Review and Its Development in
the Modern World: a Comparative Constitutional Analysis, Yerevan-Ljubljana, 1999
6. Karakamisheva-Jovanovska anja, PapОr „Constitutional Complaint-Procedural and
Legal Instrument for Development of the Constitutional Justice (Case study-Federal
Republic of Germany, Republic of Croatia, Republic of Slovenia and Republic of
MacОdonia)“, АШrХН CШЧПОrОЧМО ШЧ CШЧstТtutТШЧКХ JustТМО ШЧ tСОЦО: “IЧПХuОЧtТКХ
Constitutional Justice: its influence on Society and on developing a global human
rТРСts УurТspruНОЧМО”, ШrРКЧТгОН Лв tСО CШЧstТtutТШЧКХ CШurt ШП ЋШutС AПrТМК КЧН tСО
Venice Commission, Cape Town, 23-24 January 2009
7. Kommers Donald, The constitutional jurisprudence of the Federal Republic of
Germany, Durham, London, 1997
8. , У , , 1960
9. , „ ђ
?“, , . 2/2007
10. , У , ,
, , 2013
11. , У ђ
У , ђ –
,
, 3. , , 2009
12. , –
,
, 56/2010
47
13. , -
У , , 65/2013
14. , У ,
, 4/2007
15. , , ђ
, ,
, 2010
16. , У , , 2011
17. , У , 3 ,
, 2014
18. , У
, , , 31/1991
19. , У , , . 14,
, 2007
20. , :
, ђ ( ),
, 2008
21. , Љ , ђ
, ,
, 2012
22. , У – ,
, . 1/2012, . 222
23. , ,
, . 23, 1983
24. , –
, ,
, 1989
25. , У – II, , 2013
26. ,
ђ , , ,
2010
27. , ђ ђ
, , ,
57/2011
48
Ђ
1. ( , 98/06)
2. (
, 1/03)
3. ( , 1/92)
4. ( , 1/90)
5. ( , 8/74)
6. ( , 14/63)
7. ( , . 103/2013)
8. ђ (
, 26/03)
9. ( , . 109/2007, 99/2011, 18/13 –
, 40/2015 103/2015)
10. ( , 54/63)
11. ђ ( , 116/2008, 104/2009,
101/2010, 31/2011 – . , 78/2011 – . , 101/2011, 101/2013, 106/2015,
40/2015 – . 13/2016)
12. ђ ( ,
40/2015)
, ,
1. 30.10.2008.
02.04.2009. , http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/view/163-100890/stavovi-suda
2. – 6445/2013 21.04.2016.
3. I 180/2013 26.03.2015. , "
", . 65/2015
4. 2015. , http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/view/137-
101100/pregled-rada
5. 2014. , http://www.ustavni.sud.rs/page/view/137-
101100/pregled-rada
49
ђ
,
.
, .
ђ ,
( 95%) ,
ђ .
ђ ,
,
.
,
ђ ,
,
,
, , .
( )
, ,
, .
, ђ
, ,
, .
, –
, .
К : У , ,
, У , У
50
ABSTRACT
„TСО ОППОМt ШП tСО НОМТsТШЧs ШП the Constitutional Court of Serbia in the process of
МШЧstТtutТШЧКХ КppОКХ“
The essential function of the Constitutional Court is the implementation of
normative control and preservation of the principles of constitutionality and legality, but in
recent decades, deciding on constitutional appeals impose itself as one of the most important
tasks of the Constitutional Court. In this regard, the Constitutional Court has to deal with the
fact that control of the constitutionality of the law is no longer his numerically dominant
jurisdiction, constitutional appeal has become dominant. What is the importance of the
introduction of constitutional complaint shows the statistics, according to which the biggest
number of cases in front of the Constitutional Court (almost 95%) make the constitutional
appeal, perceived by citizens as a last resort for justice and protection of rights.
However, although it is considered as one of the most effective legal instruments of
direct protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms, the constitutional appeal in
practice, indicates on some flaws and problems related to its existence. Reconsideration and
abolition of court decisions, in legal systems which classify constitutional judiciary outside
the borders of regular judiciary, guaranteeing the independence of the judicial authority and
its primacy in resolving legal disputes, Constitutional Court goes beyond the limits of its
constitutional permission, avoiding the constitutional norm that the legally valid decisions of
the judicature, definitive, compulsory and can not be subject of extrajudicial control. A
possible solution for this problem should be look for in a precise definition of the range
(ambit) examination of court decisions on constitutional complaints by the Constitutional
Court, on the one hand, and the effects of the decision of the Constitutional Court in relation
to the court decision, on the other.
Finally, the last word in the interpretation of the constitution and determining
the violation of human rights and freedoms has a constitutional court, which must sanction
any forms of unconstitutionality, regardless of whether it comes from the legislative,
executive or judicial branches of government. In such treatment, the courts must accept the
constitutional court as a partner in a common goal - the protection of constitutionality, not as a
rival and competitor in the resolution of legal disputes.
51
Keywords: Constitutional Court, the protection of fundamental human rights and
freedoms, constitutional appeal, the effect of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, the
relationship between the Constitutional Court and the regular courts
52
, , ђ 13. 1990. .
- „ “ 2009. .
2009/2010 ,
02.07.2014. 8,88.
ђ
,
. 2014. ,
. ,
,
– „ 2015. “,
9,83.
– ,
,
ђ ,
.
. ,
.
53
:
:
: .
pНП , .
, 31.10.2016.
______________________________
54
УО ,
:
• ; • , ,
, ; • .
.
:
, 31.10.2016.
______________________________