“The Constitutional Court’s decision U-I-155/20-24 regarding the constitutionality of paragraph four of article 39 of the Communicable Diseases Act and the relevant government decree reaches the level of being unreadable. Even a lenient editorial board of a lenient, semi-serious legal journal would return something so badly written to the author and refuse to publish it. It appears they started at the desired result and then worked their way backwards to the actual decision, referring to the constitutional right to freedom of initiative and work and to Article 120 of the Constitution. This was all completely illogical and full of awkward complications,” believes the expert in international law, Miha Pogačnik.
The decision is so legally hollowly written and legally inappropriately uninterpreted that apparently, the Constitutional Court Judge Rajko Knez feared for his reputation and on the last, fifth page of the dissenting opinion (which is worth a read!) also explained the illogicalities in the explanation of the decision prepared by the majority, which shows that they are searching for an artificially created problem, which actually does not exist.
“Knez’s opinion is legally readable, logical, well-argued and, regardless of the content, this is a text that is on a whole different level. The truth is that Article 39 of the Communicable Diseases Act is completely appropriate, which could also be confirmed by an international study.” However, if one were to ask one of the five Constitutional Court Judges what the article should state in order for it to be constitutional, they would quickly find that they have no idea because it is the unpredictability of the situation that is the essence of this legal provision.
If they knew how to add the services to their decision (thank God!), then they could have also written down the rest. But they do not know how to. The explanation should be translated and then presented in the international circles because if things continue like this, we can expect even worse things from the Constitutional Court’s majority. “The matter is effective from the moment of the statement by the National Assembly, but it has a deadline of two months. In the meantime, things can still be arranged differently on the existing platform.”
Domen Mezeg
