Keepin touch

Whether you have a question, comment, suggestion or any problem in the purview of the government, send us your message and we will try to respond as soon as possible. If your problem is not in our purview, we will forward your message to the relevant institution.

The Government of the Republic of Serbia

In the service of citizens

Prolonging Serbia-Montenegrin parliamentary elections violates Constitutional Charter

Belgrade, 27 December 2004

Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica spoke last night for Radio Belgrade about the achievements of the government during the past year, the future of the state union and calling immediate elections, the new Serbian constitution and cooperation with the Hague tribunal. The Serbian government’s official website brings excerpts from the interview.

Prolonging Serbia-Montenegrin parliamentary elections violates Constitutional Charter

Government’s work during the past year:

When we speak about the previous year, what comes to light is a large number of adopted reform and systemic laws. Changes have begun in whole sectors by adopting strategies, which is a necessary precondition for passing appropriate laws.

The Serbian government prepared over 100 bills. The parliament enacted 69 laws in the previous period through joint efforts of the government and the parliament, and through a somewhat different relationship between parliamentary parties.

Few governments have the budget for the following year adopted as early as in November. This government, however, should point out one more thing, this is actually the second budget, as we inherited a budgetary deficit from the previous government. At the same time, I point out the adoption of two budgets, as well as the budget revision, because they meant that the government has been tested several times, which was a kind of an immediate confidence vote to the government.

Elections for the Serbia-Montenegrin parliament:

In painstaking efforts to preserve the state union, Serbian authorities have tried to come up with a platform that would be acceptable both for Serbia and Montenegro, so that both member states could have equal status. The talks between Belgrade and Podgorica have been conducted with the mediation of Brussels from the very start.

The Belgrade Accord envisions that both member states will have the right to pass laws on the state union’s parliamentary elections, but basic principles of those laws are set in the Constitutional Charter, which was passed several months later.

I find it appalling that so many officials not only from Belgrade, but from Podgorica as well, are finding ways of breaching the Constitutional Charter through a settlement. No regulation can be breached through an agreement.

In the meantime, Serbia adopted the Law on Immediate Elections for the Serbia-Montenegrin parliament and thus fulfilled its obligation according to the Constitutional Charter. The problem is in Montenegro – as the present ruling majority thinks that the Constitutional Charter should not be respected. According to the agreement, the first elections were to be indirect, to be followed by immediate elections in two years, which means in 2005.

The possibility of changing the Constitutional Charter:

The Constitutional Charter can be changed in order to satisfy the demands of Podgorica, but I ask the question why we should do that if we made an agreement once. From a pragmatic point of view, there is not time to change the Constitutional Charter now. Change would mean that three assemblies need to adopt a uniform decision: the Serbian parliament, the Montenegrin parliament and the parliament of Serbia-Montenegro. That is a vain job, I would say.

The possibility of mediation from Brussels:

Brussels took part in a way and helped to find a solution through many concessions, mainly on Serbia’s side, to be objective. The Belgrade Accord is a political agreement, unlike the Constitutional Charter which is a legal act arising from the Belgrade Accord. It has a foreign element, a signature from the EU. In that sense, this is a multi-sided agreement signed by authorities in Belgrade, official Podgorica and the EU. It is natural that the EU, as one of the signatories, is interested that the agreement is applied. The question, however, is whether the agreement can be applied by one side only. It is not the issue of mediation, the problem is not in Belgrade. The problem is Podgorica, i.e. official Montenegro, but not in the whole of Montenegro.

Possibility of delaying direct elections until 2006:

That would be a violation of the Constitutional Charter. Delaying means violating the Constitutional Charter because the Constitutional Charter requires that the first elections, those held in 2003, be indirect, and that the next elections, those due in 2005, be direct elections. The charter also envisages the possibility of holding a referendum on independence in both member-states, or in one of them, or in neither. These direct elections are a pre-requisite for a referendum. I think that this situation is a serious challenge for the EU. It has taken responsibility when it comes to the state union, put forward reasons for its survival, and proposed a model for the functioning of the two-way track despite disparities between the two republics’ economic and foreign trade systems. I am convinced that the EU will demonstrate its commitment to the state union, which cannot be seen in Montenegro’s formal majority.

Serbia’s new constitution:

There is no reason whatsoever for delays when it comes to passing a new constitution in Serbia. As far as I am concerned, according to my political and professional stands, Serbia should have had a new constitution long ago. That is an obligation stemming from the Constitutional Charter and it was absolutely necessary to adopt a new constitution, break away from the former regime, and define institutions that would lead us to Europe. At one point, we were passing reform laws, even though they might be questionable from the point of view of the Constitution. Once a new constitution is adopted, these laws will have to be harmonised with it. We are one of the post-communist countries that has needed the longest time to resolve that constitutional issue. Some countries managed to resolve it in a year or two. A new constitution is the first sign that a country has broken way from the previous regime and Serbia has failed to do so. We need a new constitution, new institutions, we need to break way from the former regime through constitutional changes.

Cooperation with The Hague:

The Hague tribunal exists as an instrument of justice, which can be used in various ways by various forces. The Serbian government’s stand is to fulfill all our obligations in the most favorable way as soon as possible. The Serbian government has chosen cooperation with The Hague that allows for carrying out that cooperation in the best possible way, that is, through voluntary surrenders of indictees. In a month’s time, two people went to The Hague and at the same time, two of the indictees were released pending trial. These are positive developments. They should encourage others to do the same.

Message to citizens of Serbia:

I am convinced that 2005 will be a better year, in terms of everyday life and security of jobs and incomes and that we will achieve a peace of mind that we need and deserve. The Serbian government has put in a lot of efforts this year to achieve these goals. Great challenges are ahead, but also some resolutions: the fate of the state union, Kosovo-Metohija, our international obligations, including economic reforms, new privatisations under strict regulations, restructuring that will set the economy in motion, laws that will soon yield results. I also believe that something that the government is committed to will also yield results in 2005, that being the fight against corruption. I know that our citizens need justice and this government will deliver that justice in 2005.