In respect of the response by President of the Constitutional Court Mr Budimir Šaranović, hereby we integrally communicate the response of President of the Parliament of Montenegro Mr Aleksa Bečić:
First of all, allow me to be completely clear - the accusations that you have levelled at my account are inappropriate, ungrounded, unsustainable and malicious, and as such I reject them entirely.
Bearing in mind the tone of your reply addressed to me, it is obvious that you are acting as my political opponent rather that the President of the Constitutional Court. If we take into consideration the actions of you and of your colleagues, with a few honourable exceptions, over a long period of time, I could not say that I am surprised.
Mr President of Constitutional Court, the only one who was making pressure these days are you precisely, when by means of your official letter you asked from me to violate the Constitution and the parliamentary Rules of Procedure and convene the parliamentary sitting during the extraordinary session in a deadline shorter of 15 days. How to define and understand the previously described if not as a direct pressure on the legislative power and preventing the Parliament from exercising its constitutional duty? You admitted this publicly, by changing your original decision, thereby confirming that we were right.
Mr Šćepanović, if really there was no intention from your side, why hadn’t you before the beginning of the parliamentary sitting sent an official letter in order to correct potentially dangerous mistake which was made? I am saying this because you had sufficient time to correct mistake in this manner. There is a lot of grounds to doubt that you didn’t do that because you were under the pressure of those who gave you instructions, probably in respect of your previous reply as well, to fight a losing battle. Allow me to notice that maybe precisely because of that you went astray. However, that is not the concern of mine, and I cannot tell that I regret you.
As much as I expected the obvious mistakes that you would make due to the lack of arguments when trying to defend the indefensible, I admit that I didn’t expect that you would use the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion and obvious manipulation, persistently trying to run away from the fact that the Parliament is in its extraordinary session, and that, consequently, the deadlines for convening the sitting are not the same during the ordinary and extraordinary sessions.
Therefore, since you are recalling the past cases, please let us know in how many cases throughout the history of the Constitutional Court there were requests towards the Parliament for submitting replies and relates documentations, how many of those during the ordinary and how many during the extraordinary session, and how many times the deadline for the Parliament’s opinion was 15 days? The “statistics” itself will tell us a lot. If this is too much work for you, it is probably more simple to tell us - why almost at the same day in the in the same legal matter, for one act you asked from the Parliament to submit its opinion within 15 days, and for another opinion within 30 days?
Furthermore, Mr President of the Constitutional Court, the incredible level of your attempt to manipulate is mirrored in the fact that you avoided to say that out of several thousands of cases, all three cases that you mentioned as the “absolute proof” in attempting to defend the indefensible concern the regular parliamentary sitting where the deadlines can be shorter unlike the extraordinary session during which the sitting cannot be convened in the deadline stated in your request. This is the problem, Mr President of the Constitutional Court. That’s why you remained silent regarding this.
It is especially disgusting to read your accusations against the leaders of the new government, to whom the citizens gave the greatest trust in the elections. However, to avoid vague wording - I hope that in the future we will learn the background of relations between different ministers and state secretaries with the Constitutional Court in the previous period. Only then, I believe, we will have an opportunity to draw conclusions and see from better perspective how the pressure against court looks like and how completely opposite situation. Until then, the only ones who can judge our work are the citizens. We are very frequently assessed in the elections, while on the other side, if you have doubts about citizens’ perception of the Constitutional Court work, please find the was to check upon that impression. I believe that then you will at least ask yourself whether such an assessment of the citizens is appropriate for the highest court instance, and all for the sake of certain individuals, under whose pressure you are.“